Evola? Né eccentrico, né "guru"

Evola? Né eccentrico, né "guru": de Turris racconta gli incontri col filosofo

Ex: http://www.secoloditalia.it

«Julius Evola aveva una personalità multiforme, o almeno un carattere variabile, umorale, o era addirittura lunatico come anche è stato detto? E’ quel che si potrebbe pensare ascoltando le testimonianze di quanti hanno avuto la possibilità di conoscerlo e frequentarlo, dato che ne offrono rappresentazioni diverse, spesso assai diverse e quasi contrastanti fra loro al punto di sembrare o invenzioni o descrizioni di persone differenti. E’ quel che mi è venuto di pensare – scrive Gianfranco de Turris sul Barbadillo.it – ascoltando amici o estranei che mi hanno raccontato i loro incontri con il filosofo e chiedendomi sempre quale fosse invece la mia personale impressione: pur facendo la tara sul tempo trascorso, erano immagini troppo distanti per non cercare una spiegazione. Come ripeto a tutti coloro che mi interpellano a questo proposito, soprattutto chi per l’età non ha potuto conoscere di persona Evola, io l’ho sempre trovato una persona “normale”, senza eccentricità, bizzarrie, a parte il vezzo di prendere dal cassetto della scrivania il monocolo e inforcarlo alla presenza di signore e signorine; nessun atteggiamento di superiorità o da “maestro”, nessuna saccenteria, e questo sin da quando andai a trovarlo per la prima volta accompagnato da Adriano Romualdi, come avveniva per chi era giovane tra la fine degli anni Sessanta e l’inizio degli anni Settanta del Novecento. Di  certo avvenne dopo il 1968 quando avevo parlato di lui sul mensile L’Italiano fondato e diretto da Pino Romualdi e sul quale Adriano mi aveva invitato a collaborare (ed ero anche retribuito!). Con lui si parlava pacatamente di tutto, purtroppo non di alcune questioni cruciali di cui soltanto dopo, approfondendone vita e pensiero, avrei voluto parlare col senno di poi. Questioni un po’ più “profonde” si affrontarono solo verso la fine della sua vita, a dicembre 1973, quando andai a trovarlo con Sebastiano Fusco ed avemmo una lunga conversazione registrata che pubblicai però postuma, dodici anni dopo, in appendice alla seconda edizione di Testimonianze su Evola (Mediterranee, 1985)».

La “scandalosa” intervista concessa a Playmen

«Evidentemente si fece di me una opinione positiva – continua de Turris – anche se non mi disse mai nulla in proposito, ma sta di fatto che acconsentì a rispondere alle mie domande per una serie di interviste (almeno quattro) su vari giornali e riviste, preso ormai dalla mia mania “giornalistica” di divulgarne le opinioni rimaste sempre in ambiti ristretti,  più di quante sino a quel momento gli erano state fatte da altri, e ora raccolte in Omaggio a Julius Evola (Volpe, 1973) pubblicato per i suoi 75 anni. E, sempre per quella mia mania, ne propiziai diverse tra cui quella, clamorosa, che apparve su Playmen (con grande scandalo dei bacchettoni di destra e di sinistra) effettuata nel 1970 da Enrico de Boccard che soltanto molto dopo appresi essere stato uno dei “giovani” vicini a lui negli anni Cinquanta. Opinione positiva sua e di Adriano che ho conosciuto soltanto abbastanza di recente quando furono pubblicati una parte del suo epistolario italiano (Lettere di Julius Evola, a cura di Renato Del Ponte, Arktos, 2005) e le lettere di Adriano al comune e sfortunato amico Emilio Carbone (Lettere ad un amico, a cura di Renato Del Ponte, Arya, 2013), tanto che il filosofo mi propose come collaboratore della rivista che voleva pubblicare il compianto Gaspare Cannizzo nonostante lui lo avesse sconsigliato e che uscì nel 1971 come Vie della Tradizione, e al Cahier de l’Herne dedicato a Gustav Meyrink uscito dopo la sua morte».

 

Appassionato di Tex

 

 

 

«Una persona che parlava di tutto e di tutti, sino al limite del pettegolezzo e raccontando barzellette, come un vecchio amico, senza prosopopea e saccenteria o atteggiamenti da ”guru”. Almeno con me non aveva alcuna cadenza o inflessione “alla romana”, pur essendo nato e cresciuto  nella capitale con qualche viaggio da ragazzino a Cinisi, il paese di origine dei suoi dove ancora esiste la casa avita. Al massimo arrotava “alla siciliana”  la “r” iniziale delle parole essendo vissuto in una famiglia di quelle origini. Insomma, tutt’altro che  il personaggio che emerge da altri ricordi. Ad esempio, un amico, che “evoliano” non è, mi ha raccontato che andando a trovarlo insieme ad un devoto del suo pensiero, questi, entrato nella sua stanza, si prosternò al suolo e quindi assorbì in silenzio i precetti un po’ assurdi e fuori del tempo che Evola gli dettava! Non posso pensare che questo amico si sia inventato tutto. Viceversa, una volta ad altri che erano recati da lui con spirito troppo superficiale, alla fine li congedò, come ha ricordato Renato Del Ponte, regalando oro una copia di Tex, il fumetto western allora (e oggi) il più longevo e diffuso, come dire, secondo me: siete più adatti a questo genere di  letture. A buon intenditor…».

La “Metafisica del sesso”

«Tutto ciò però  si collega a quanto lo stesso Adriano Romualdi mi raccontava allora. Ad esempio, che di fronte a certi che gli si erano presentati dicendo: “Maestro, noi il lunedì ci riuniamo per leggere Cavalcare la tigre, martedì Gli uomini e le rovine, mercoledì Rivolta contro il mondo moderno….”, Evola li interruppe e chiese: “E quando vi decidete a leggere Metafisica del sesso?”. Ad altri infervorati consigliò, per far soldi, di darsi al traffico di armi o, meglio, alla “tratta delle bianche”, come allora si diceva. In una delle sue ultime interviste, mi sembra a Panorama o in quella pubblicata postuma da Il Messaggero, disse che “il popolo bisogna trattarlo con la frusta”…. Cosa vogliano dire queste singolari affermazioni rispetto alla personalità “normale” che io ho conosciuto, ed hanno conosciuto anche altri? Dopo tanto tempo ho tratto alcune conclusioni».

Incontrava tutti, amici e nemici

«Il filosofo accettava di vedere, di parlare con tutti, senza preclusioni pur non conoscendo i suoi interlocutori, magari giovani e meno giovani di altre città che venivano appositamente a Roma per conoscerlo dopo aver letto i suoi libri. Prendevano un appuntamento e si recavano da lui, e quando non era in casa la domestica/governante altoatesina con cui parlava in tedesco, questa andandosene lasciava la chiave dell’ingresso sotto lo stuoino e chi arrivava, preavvertito, la prendeva e apriva la porta (e in teoria avrebbe potuto farlo anche qualche malintenzionato). Nel suo studio Evola accoglieva i visitatori o a letto o seduto alla sua sedia di fronte alla macchina da scrivere. Qui, io penso, si faceva una idea dei nuovi venuti grazie al suo acume psicologico ma soprattutto al suo intuito “sottile”, e si comportava di conseguenza, e quindi usava atteggiamenti, argomenti e soprattutto parole adatte alla bisogna. Oppure non ne usava affatto: come racconta Gaspare Cannizzo in un articolo,  certi suoi incontri consistevano in lunghi silenzi. Ecco il motivo per cui appariva “diverso” o singolare a chi lo andava a trovare, magari soltanto per una volta. Si comportava come un maestro zen o sufi,  un po’ come faceva anche Pio Filippani-Ronconi: diceva cose assurde, usava espressioni paradossali, provocatorie, estreme, quasi, così provocando, voler sondare le reazioni di chi aveva davanti, come a a volerlo saggiare, sondare, osservare le reazioni esteriori, ma anche interiori. I devoti, gli “evolomani” come lui stesso li aveva definiti, prendevano magari alla lettera quanto diceva e se ne facevano una impressione sbagliata. Lo stesso vale per chi andava da lui con atteggiamento troppo superficiale, o per i  facinorosi, che pensavano di essere “uomini di azione” e avevano dopo l’incontro impressioni pessime definendolo addirittura un “frocio”, come si può leggere nel libro-intervista ad un ergastolano “fascista” (Io, l’uomo nero, Marsilio, 2008). Il guaio, se così si può dire, è che il filosofo faceva lo stesso anche con chi non lo conosceva affatto oppure era già prevenuto nei suoi confronti, ad esempio con giornalisti per  nulla amichevoli i quali, anch’essi prendendo le sue parole ed espressioni alla lettera le riportavano pari pari e ne tratteggiavano un profilo oscuro e “maledetto”, quello del “barone nero” appunto, a conferma dei loro teoremi mentali (ricordiamoci che si era in piena “contestazione” e violenza, anche se il vero terrorismo non era ancora nato). Non era, dunque, una personalità multiforme, un carattere variabile, ma il suo essere così aveva un senso perché faceva da riscontro alla personalità e all’animo dei suoi interlocutori, seri o meno seri, preparati o meno preparati, colti o meno colti, ingenui o meno, amici o nemici. Il suo atteggiamento e linguaggio – conclude de Turris – servivano per capire chi fossero quei tanti che volevano vederlo, incontrarlo, parlargli, magari anche per prenderli sottilmente in giro per le loro esagerazioni, pur se non se rendevano conto. Da qui, ma a lui ovviamente non importava, la nascita di alcune leggende metropolitane nei suoi confronti che non sempre gli hanno giovato».

The Magical World of the Heroes

The Magical World of the Heroes

 

Ex: http://www.lumineboreali.net

 

I discovered this fascinating little article by Alexander Dugin. I found it particularly interesting because this intriguing and mystical Hermetic work from Renaissance Italy, Il mondo magico de gli heroi – or The Magical World of the Heroes , authored by Cesare della Riviera – is referred to extensively in a couple of books I have had the pleasure to read recently, one for entertainment, the other for serious study: the esoteric author Joscelyn Godwin's curious little novel The Forbidden Book (certainly recommended, despite the portrayal of the radical traditionalist right as villains), and Julius Evola's The Hermetic Tradition. I assume that the latter work would be known to anyone on here claiming an interest in Evola's esotericism.

Let this thread be dedicated to Cesare della Riviera and Il mondo magico de gli heroi. Do not hesitate to share material concerning this, or overlapping topics, such as Evola's The Hermetic Tradition.

Now keep in mind that the article below is worded quite obscurely in symbolic language. As I have not come far in my study of the Hermetic Tradition yet, I cannot comment with great certainty upon the precision or correctness of the following commentary. But it is interesting and brief reading that might inspire the public to investigate this subject further.

There are even some questionable political statements of Dugin in there that are not very central to the subject that is della Riviera's esoteric lineage.

1. An Open Entrance to the Occult text of Cesare della Riviera

"The Magical World of the Heroes" (Il mondo magico de gli heroi), the book by Cesare della Riviera, was published in 1605. Later, in the 20th century, Julius Evola republished it with his comments, asserting that in this hermetic treatise can be found the most open and clear statement of the principles of spiritual alchemy and hermetic art. Rene Guenon notes in his review, however, that the work of della Riviera is far from being as transparent as asserted in Evola's commentary.
And indeed, "The Magical World of the Heroes" is enigmatic to the limit - first, by its literary form, and second, because the concepts with which the author deals are something extremely mysterious in themselves, not clear, and having no equivalent in concrete reality.
But, maybe the difficulties in understanding the given theme arise because the very "heroic principle", the figure of the Hero, is far from the sphere of what is surrounding us today? Perhaps this difficult text is crystal clear for the true heroes and does not require any further decoding?
It is crystal clear and transparent as ice...

2. Cosmogony of Ice

In Evola's books, devoted to the differing problems of tradition and politics, there is always an appeal to the principle of Cold. The theme of Cold emerges here and there, irrespective of if the matter concerns tantra or the existential position of the "solitary man", Zen-Buddhism or knightly mysteries of medieval Europe, modern art or autobiographical notes. "Cold" and "distance" are the two words which, perhaps, are found most often in the "Black Baron's" lexicon.
The hero, by very definition, should be cold. If he will not separate himself from those around him, if he will not freeze the warm energy of daily humanness within himself, he will not be at a level of performing the Impossible, i.e. at the level that marks a hero from the merely human. The hero should leave the people and travel beyond the limit of social cosiness, where penetrating winds of an objective reality, severe and nonhuman, roar. The soil and stones rise against the animal and vegetal worlds. The aggressive vegetation corrodes minerals, and wild animals ruthlessly trample down the obstinate herbs. The elements outside the society show no mercy. The world in itself is a triumphal banquet of substance, whose bottom level merges with the lumps of cosmic ice. The hero is cold, because he is objective, because he accepts the relay race of spontaneous force, furious and unkind, from the world.
The character of all heroes - from Hercules through to Hitler - are identical: they are deeply natural, elemental, abysmally cold and distanced from social compromise. They are the carriers of the abyss of objectivity.
In his strange, hermetic manner Cesare della Riviera thus interprets the word "Angelo" ("angel"):
ANGELO = ANtico GELO, i.e. the "Angel = Ancient Ice".
This is connected with the next phase of the heroic deed, not a voyage toward reality, but an escape from its limits - escape from the ice bonds.
The Alchemy and Cabbala know much about the secret of the "ice stronghold". It is a border separating the "lower waters" of life from the "upper waters" of Spirit. The phrase of della Riviera has a strict theological sense: leaving the sphere of emotional life, the hero becomes a small crystal of ice, a luminous angel, in the glassy sea of Spirit, on which a heavenly throne of Kings is founded. The Snow Queen from Andersen's fairytale has forced the boy Kai to shape pieces of ice into a mysterious angelical word - 'Ewigkeit', but the warm forces of Earth ("Gerda" means 'Earth' in old German) have returned the unfortunate hero to a poor and hopeless life. Instead of an angel, he subsequently becomes a red-faced Scandinavian burger with beer and sausages. Cold is an attribute of a corpse and the initiated one. The bodies of yogi freeze in the process of awakening the sacred snake energy - the higher the Kundalini rises, the more lifeless the corresponding body parts become, until the initiated one turns into a statue of ice, an axis of spiritual constancy.
Each hero necessarily travels to the Pole, into the heart of midnight. There he learns to love that dark and obscure substance, which is called "our Earth" by the alchemists or the "philosophers' magnesia". The urn holding the ashes of Baron Evola is buried in the thickness of an Alpine glacier, on Monte Rosa peak. The mountain was probably named so in honor of the sacral beloved of Friedrich II Hohenstauffen, the one who has not died. La Rosa di Soria. The polar rose.

3. The Voyage of the Polar Nymph

Cyliani, a mysterious 19th century alchemist whose pseudonym was determined only with the help of Pierre Dujols (Magaphon), friend of Fulcanelli and... a secret Valois, wrote that his heroic travel into the "magical world of the heroes" began with a strange visit from the "nymph of the polar star"...
Where do her footsteps lead?
They lead inside. Inside the earth, where a fantastic matter named "sulfuric acid of the
philosophers" is hiding. Visitabis interiora terrae rectificando invenies occultum lapidem. The stone is completely black, as a soul, shrouded in "antimimon pneuma" of the Gnostics. There, from the blackness of personal uncertainty, from undifferentiated "I", slipping away from any name, the magic feat begins. If the hero will not question that which constitutes his apparent essence, he is doomed. Even the divine parents do not give the answer to a problem of an origin of "I".

4. The Secret of the Heavenly Dragon

The search for the nymph is connected to an original problem of the definition of the pole star. The heavenly pole spins around, like "Atalanta fugiens". Once a slender creature was hiding in Ursa Major's fur near Arcturus. She calls herself "Shemol". In 12 thousand years she will say of herself - "I am Vega". But what is this Axis, that the dance of millenia goes round?
Black dot in the northern sky. Dragon coils around it, tempting the steadfast observer, offering doubtful fruits of knowledge. The polar nymph has given to Cyliani the key to victory over this Dragon. Hermeticists consider it a question of the primal matter. Heavenly Dragon, the true north of the ecliptic. He is guarding the boreal heart of black expanses, as a spiral outlining the absent centre.

5. The Second of Betelgeuse

Orion is the most mysterious of all constellations. Time is hiding on his right shoulder. He is the main hero of the subterranean (and not only subterranean!) world. "Betelgeuse" means "hero's shoulder" in Arabic. It is on that very shoulder that is kept the secret of a book which Fulcanelli at first gave to Canseliet, and later withdrew, forbiding its publishing. The matter concerns the "Finis Gloria Mundi", third book by the adept. When Virgo's milk touches the brawny shoulder of the "black god", and he thus loses his hands under ruthless executors' knives, a world fire is coming, the sphere is overturning. The sky falls. It is made of stone, as everybody knows. The heroes are secretly preparing terrible shocks to society. A society which consoles itself with the fact it has banished them from history, but where is the precise border between literary and nuclear range, between a dark corner for meditations and carpet bombardments?
To our information, the agents of Betelgeuse, inhabitants of the "magical world of the heroes", disguised as state officials, have made their way to the engine-room of authority. There is only the certainty of heavenly sequence and processional cycles in their minds. A nuclear fire of the Northern Hemisphere is a way to Olympus, the fire of Hercules for them.
Besides the external Evola had a secret mission...

6. The Forest of Rambouillet

"The forest of Rambouillet is a forest of blood" - Jean Parvulesco hypnotically repeats in his novel. A white deer with its throat cut is found there, then a corpse of a naked woman with identical wounds. The magic wood in which Dante has lost his way. "Philosophers' Forest". On a certain engraving, illustrating the "Tabula Smaragdina" of Hermes Trismegistus, the man with an elk's head is giving the Moon to Eve. Later, if we'll believe Parvulesco, they will meet again in a garden of Rambouillet.
A joyless rendezvous.
"One day Apollo will return, and this time for ever", - says the last prophecy of a Delphian pythoness in IV century A.D.

/Alexander Dugin
Translation: Andrey Bogdanov​

 

"One day Apollo will return, and this time for ever",
- says the last prophecy of a Delphian pythoness in IV century A.D.
Apollo is a Hyperborean god, which associates him with the memory of a Golden Age.

La crisis de la civilización occidental según Julius Evola

La crisis de la civilización occidental según Julius Evola

Lydia Morales

Ex: http://www.kosmos-polis.com

En un ensayo sobre el tantrismo la escritora Marguerite Yourcenar[i] reseñaba una de las obras monumentales de Julius Evola titulada Lo Yoga della Potenza. La académica francesa catalogaba al filósofo y orientalista italiano, profesor de las universidades de Florencia y de Milán, como "un erudito genial" ateniéndose a sus obras más ponderadas. Pero aunque el barón Evola fue un erudito genial, ciertamente no fue un erudito inmaculado. Evola tuvo un pasado fascista y fue "uno de esos italianos germanizados con no sé sabe qué clase de obsesiones gibelinas", un hombre "mucho más fascinado por el poder que por el conocimiento o el amor" que estaba poseído por un "titanismo prometeico más o menos espiritualizado"[ii]. Su Rivolta contro il mondo moderno (el título de otro de sus libros), por muy justificada que esa rebelión en parte esté, "acabó arrastrándolo a unos parajes aún más peligrosos que aquellos que creía abandonar". En sus libros asoman un puñado de vicios intelectuales, esperables en alguien con semejante orientación, que enturbian una y otra vez incluso sus trabajos más brillantes. La propia Yourcenar señaló casi todos esos vicios: "el concepto de raza elegida que en la práctica conduce al nazismo"; "una avidez enfermiza por los poderes supranormales, que lo lleva a aceptar sin control los aspectos más materiales de la aventura espiritual"; "el paso lamentable de la noción de poderes intelectuales y místicos a la de poder puro y simple"; "un sueño de dominación aristocrática y sacerdotal que no sabemos si correspondió a una edad de oro del pasado, pero del que en nuestro tiempo hemos visto caricaturas grotescas y atroces"; a lo que habría que añadir un desprecio sumario hacia lo femenino que lo lleva a proclamar la deficiencia interior de la mujer y la incapacidad femenina para la vida humana superior. No obstante, y a pesar de todo esto -que no debe olvidarse nunca cuando uno se acerca a la obra de Evola– también es cierto que sus mejores libros, tomados con las debidas cautelas, aportan abundante materia para la reflexión. Huellas de ellos pueden encontrarse en las obras de no pocos autores contemporáneos que, sin embargo, omiten cuidadosamente la fuente por considerarla innombrable y maldita. Adolfo Morganti, en el ámbito del orientalismo, y Alain de Benoist, en el de la filosofía, fueron los primeros que se atrevieron a remitir a las obras de Evola abiertamente. Como señaló Morganti, "después de años de que el pensamiento evoliano hubiera sido o demonizado grotescamente o ensalzado como un improbable evangelio, había que romper son el muro de las ideologías y proceder al debate de las ideas y a un análisis crítico digno de ese nombre"[iii].

En este sentido Cavalgar el tigre ha sido una de sus obras más interesantes e influyentes[iv]. Su punto de partida es la ciclología de las tradiciones culturales indoeuropeas, que observa un descenso progresivo de la civilización desde una 'edad de oro' primordial hasta una 'edad de hierro' donde se liberan todos los mecanismos disolutorios para dar paso a la liquidación del ciclo. Para esa concepción del tiempo –propia de nuestra cultura clásica y presente todavía hoy en el pensamiento hindú- nuestra época, lejos de ser la culminación de un tiempo lineal de progreso continuo, es el momento final de una era de disolución. En tal contexto temporal Evola señala que hay un cierto tipo humano "que, aun estando comprometido con el mundo actual, no pertenece interiormente a él, no contempla la posibilidad de ceder ante él y se siente, por su esencia, de una clase diferente a la mayor parte de sus contemporáneos". El lugar natural de este tipo humano sería "el mundo de la Tradición", entendiendo por tal cosa las civilizaciones y sociedades regidas por principios transcendentes. Puesto que lo que ha terminado por prevalecer en el mundo actual es la exacta antítesis de eso, Evola observa que los Hombres diferenciados a los que se refiere se hallan "de pie en medio de las ruinas". Para ellos hace una radiografía del mundo actual tan detallada como demoledora.

Evola empieza analizando la disolución del orden moral. El primer capítulo –titulado "En un mundo donde Dios ha muerto"- hace referencia al nihilismo hoy reinante en Occidente y ya anunciado por Nietzsche. "La muerte de Dios", dice Evola, "es una imagen que sirve para caracterizar todo un proceso histórico. Expresa el descreimiento hecho realidad cotidiana", la ruptura con la Tradición que en el Occidente actual tiene el carácter de un hecho consumado y tal vez irreversible. Evola observa que en este proceso de desacralización el hecho primario es una ruptura ontológica: las referencias reales a la Transcendencia han desaparecido de la vida humana. Todos los desarrollos del nihilismo están virtualmente contenidos en este hecho. Primero fue la aparición de la llamada 'moral autónoma', fundada sobre la mera autoridad de la razón independiente de todo criterio transcendente. Al haber perdido sus raíces –el lazo efectivo y original del Hombre con una dimensión supramaterial- esta moral ya no tiene una base invulnerable y la crítica puede destruirla fácilmente. Tras ella aparece, en un segundo momento, la ética utilitaria o social. "Al haber renunciado a todo fundamento absoluto e intrínseco del bien y del mal, se pretende justificar lo que queda de norma moral por lo que recomiendan al individuo su interés y la búsqueda de su tranquilidad material en la vida social". Esta ética ya no tiene carácter interiormente normativo o imperativo y todo se reduce a amoldarse a los códigos de la sociedad, que reemplazan a la ley transcendente derribada. Es un conformismo fundado "sobre el interés, la cobardía, la hipocresía y la inercia". Además, como ya no existe ningún lazo interior, "cualquier acto o comportamiento se vuelven lícitos cuando puede evitarse la sanción exterior, jurídico-social, o cuando uno es indiferente a ella". Hay, por tanto, dos fases. La primera es una rebelión metafísica que tiene consecuencias morales. En la segunda fase "hasta los motivos que habían justificado y alentado la rebelión desaparecen, volviéndose ilusorios para un nuevo tipo de Hombre. Aquí estamos ya en la fase específicamente nihilista, cuyo tema dominante es el sentido de lo absurdo y de la irracionalidad de la condición humana". Es lo que Nietzsche llamó "la miseria del Hombre sin Dios": la existencia parece perder todo significado y toda meta.

Todos los imperativos, todos los valores morales, todos los lazos y los apoyos se desmoronan. "La existencia es abandonada a sí misma en su realidad desnuda sin ningún punto de referencia fuera de ella que pueda darle sentido a los ojos del Hombre".

Evola hace notar que existe una corriente de pensamiento y una historiografía cuya característica es presentar el proceso anterior, al menos en sus primeras fases, como una conquista positiva. "Desde el siglo de las luces y cierto liberalismo", dice, "hasta el historicismo inmanentista, primero idealista, luego materialista y marxista, estas fases de disolución han sido interpretadas y exaltadas como una emancipación del Hombre, un progreso y un verdadero humanismo". En los tiempos en que nosotros vivimos, señala Evola, la ruptura metafísica y moral ha pasado ya al plano existencial. Hoy "una buena parte de la humanidad occidental encuentra normal que la existencia esté desprovista de todo verdadero significado y que no deba ser ligada a ningún principio superior, aunque se las ha arreglado para vivirla de la forma más soportable y menos desagradable posible. Sin embargo, esto tiene como contrapartida inevitable una vida interior cada vez más reducida, inestable y huidiza, así como la desaparición de toda rectitud y fuerza moral". Un sistema de anestésicos y compensaciones (el sexo banalizado, el alcohol, las drogas, las diversiones, el consumismo, los medios de masas) trata de suplir y tapar la falta de significado y de valor de una vida abandonada a sí misma. Sin embargo, cuando dicho entramado se tambalea por alguna razón aparece "la náusea, el asco, el vacío y el absurdo de toda esta nueva civilización materialista impuesta por toda la Tierra". En aquellos cuya sensibilidad es más aguda se constatan diversas formas de traumatismo interior y se ven aparecer estados de degradación y alineación existenciales. Especialmente significativa por lo que tiene de signo de los tiempos es la situación de la juventud 'perdida' o 'quemada' de hoy.

Señala Evola que una de las principales coberturas evasivas, uno de los anestésicos más eficaces del nihilismo occidental es el mito económico-social en sus dos vertientes: el bienestar consumista y el funcionarismo marxista. Capitalismo y marxismo participan del mismo espejismo: "creer en serio que la miseria existencial se reduce a sufrir indigencia material y que, en consecuencia, la primera debe desaparecer automáticamente si se elevan las condiciones materiales de la existencia". Evola considera que la verdad es más bien la opuesta: miseria espiritual y pobreza material carecen de relación y la felicidad y la plenitud humana tienen poco que ver con la abundancia material. Es un hecho que las vidas más profundas son a menudo, si no pobres, sí desde luego austeras (incluso en medio de la riqueza), porque un clima de facilidad debilita la virtud más alta e impide que el Hombre se pruebe y se discipline a sí mismo. "El verdadero significado del mito económico-social, sea cual fuere su variedad", dice Evola, "es el de un medio de anestesia interior tendente no sólo a eludir el problema de una existencia privada de todo sentido, sino a consolidar todas las formas de esta fundamental ausencia de sentido en la vida del Hombre moderno". Para Evola el marxismo y sus derivados 'progresistas' son "el estupefaciente más mortífero de todos los administrados hasta ahora a una humanidad desarraigada", estupefaciente que va acompañado de "una lobotomía psíquica tendente a neutralizar metódicamente, desde la infancia, toda forma de sensibilidad y de intereses superiores y cualquier modo de pensar que no se exprese en términos económico-sociales". En cuanto al sistema consumista, Evola dice que "destruye todo valor superior de la vida y de la personalidad", porque el individuo consumista acaba por considerar absurda cualquier renuncia al bienestar en nombre de valores más altos y se pliega gustoso a los condicionamientos anestesiantes del sistema. Puesto que en Occidente la 'clase obrera' ha entrado con gran fruición en el sistema consumista y en el modo de vida burgués, los derivados marxistas abandonan la revolución anticapitalista y llaman ahora a una suerte de "contestación global", irracional, anarquizante y privada de referentes superiores, en nombre del Tercer Mundo o de toda clase de minorías marginales.

Tanto el sistema como sus antagonistas tienen un carácter nihilista que no hace sino confirmar el nihilismo general de nuestra época.

Dos son los tipos humanos que ha producido el nihilismo contemporáneo. Evola los llama "el Hombre objeto" y el "nihilista activo". El primero -el tipo más frecuente- se pliega a los procesos de disolución en marcha de modo pasivo. O bien se adapta a una vida desprovista de sentido con anestésicos y sucedáneos, agarrándose a las formas supervivientes de convención y seguridad burguesas, o bien se entrega a formas de vida desordenadas y de revuelta anarcoide. El nihilista activo de corte nietzscheano, tipo mucho más restringido, está convencido, sin embargo, de que la actual rebelión contra la Transcendencia es el camino correcto, hace apología de ella y considera que el desastre actual es sólo el resultado de no haber sabido estar a la altura de las nuevas circunstancias sin Dios. Evola analiza entonces el tema de 'la muerte de Dios': para él no es la Divinidad metafísica, es el Dios teísta, lo que ha muerto, el Dios que es una proyección de los valores sociales dominantes o un apoyo para las debilidades humanas. Es el conjunto de conceptos que el cristianismo oficial ha considerado como esenciales e indispensables de toda religión 'verdadera' lo que ha muerto: "el Dios personal del teísmo, cierta ley moral con paraísos e infiernos, la concepción restringida de un orden providencial y de un finalismo moral del mundo y la fe que reposa sobre una base principalmente emotiva, dogmática y anti-intelectual. No es más que el Dios concebido como centro de gravedad de todo este sistema quien ha sido golpeado, un Dios que había terminado por servir de opio o contrapartida a la pequeña moral con que el mundo burgués sustituyó a la gran moral antigua. Pero el núcleo esencial, representado por las doctrinas metafísicas, permanece intacto para quien sepa comprenderlas y vivirlas, inaccesible a todos los procesos nihilistas, a toda disolución". Evola considera que el cristianismo ha facilitado la acción de las fuerzas de disolución en Occidente por haber liquidado todos los intentos metafísicos que dentro de él se han hecho. La irracionalidad de sus dogmas y la falta de un corpus sapiencial superior capaz de contener el derrumbamiento han hecho al cristianismo particularmente vulnerable a los embates de la crítica racional y del libre pensamiento.

Cuando la disolución se ha asentado en el orden moral, la enfermedad sigue con la infección de la persona. Evola distingue entre 'persona' e 'individuo'. La persona es "lo que el Hombre representa concreta y sensiblemente en el mundo y en su circunstancia, pero siempre como una forma de expresión y manifestación de un principio superior que debe ser reconocido como el verdadero centro del ser y sobre el que se sitúa el yo. El Hombre en tanto que persona tiene forma, es él mismo y se pertenece a sí mismo, y en esto se diferencia del individuo". En esto y en que la persona "no está cerrada hacia lo Alto". "La noción de individuo", por contra, "es la de una unidad abstracta, informe, numérica, sin cualidades propias y nada que lo diferencie verdaderamente". El individuo pertenece al reino de la cantidad y es un ego disociado de todo principio transcendente.

Evola vaticina que la crisis de los valores del individuo en el mundo moderno está destinada a ser general e irreversible. El materialismo, el mundo de las masas, las megaurbes modernas, la técnica, la mecanización, las fuerzas elementales despertadas y controladas por procesos objetivos, los efectos existenciales de catástrofes colectivas (las guerras totales o el megaterrorismo con sus frías destrucciones, por ejemplo), todo esto golpea mortalmente al individuo y reduce cada vez más la validez de los valores burgueses. Del individuo se desemboca así en algo todavía más bajo, el tipo de Hombre vacío, repetido en serie, producto multiplicable e insignificante, que corresponde a la vida uniformada actual. Con este tipo de Hombre vacío y serial llega "una nueva barbarie" y un "ideal animal" de vida. Un ideal basado en "el bienestar biológico, la comodidad y la euforia optimista que enfatiza lo que no es más que lozanía, juventud, fuerza física, seguridad y éxito materiales, satisfacción primitiva de los apetitos del vientre y del sexo, vida deportiva... y cuya contrapartida es una atrofia de todas las formas superiores de sensibilidad y de interés intelectual". En esta nueva barbarie y en este ideal animal se incluyen también todos los contestatarios primitivistas que reclaman una 'vuelta a la naturaleza', a la 'Madre Tierra'. Esta supuesta contestación no es sino una forma de regresión. Evola defiende que el Hombre ni es un animal ni ha tenido nunca un estado natural. El Hombre, desde el principio, "ha sido situado en un estado por encima de la naturaleza del que a continuación ha caído", de modo que cuando pretende volverse 'natural' (esto es, animal) en realidad se desnaturaliza.

Disuelta la moral y disuelto el individuo, también se disuelve el conocimiento. Evola se ocupa por extenso de la ciencia positiva y matemático-experimental propia de la modernidad. Esta ciencia no tiene para él valor de conocimiento en el sentido verdadero de ese término, pues se reduce a "una voluntad de poder aplicada a las cosas y a la naturaleza". Para Evola "la ciencia moderna, por una parte conduce a una prodigiosa extensión cuantitativa de los datos relativos a dominios antes inexplorados u olvidados, pero por otra parte no hace penetrar al Hombre en el fondo de la realidad, sino que incluso lo aleja de ella, lo vuelve aún más ajeno a ella". La naturaleza, en su profundidad, permanece cerrada al Hombre y es aún más misteriosa que antes: sus misterios simplemente han sido recubiertos y la mirada humana se ha distraído con las realizaciones espectaculares de los dominios técnicos industriales, dominios "donde no se trata de conocer el mundo, sino de transformarlo conforme al interés de una humanidad convertida exclusivamente en terrestre, como quería Marx". Simultáneamente el conocimiento directo y viviente, la penetración de la intuición intelectual o de la visión mística, "el único conocimiento que importaba a la humanidad no bastardeada", se rechaza hoy por 'no científico'.

Para Evola la concepción del mundo que tiene la ciencia moderna es esencialmente profanadora y ese mundo desacralizado por el saber científico se ha convertido en un elemento existencial constitutivo del Hombre moderno. A través de la instrucción obligatoria se le ha llenado la cabeza de nociones científicas positivistas "no pudiendo adquirir para todo lo que le rodea más que una mirada sin alma que se convierte desde entonces en destructora". El trasfondo efectivo del progreso científico-técnico actual, convertido en la nueva religión de la modernidad, es para el autor el estancamiento y la barbarie interiores. Evola señala que ese progreso "no le reporta nada al Hombre como tal": no le otorga ni conocimiento transcendente, ni potencia interior, ni una norma de acción de más altura moral. En el plano de la acción la ciencia moderna "pone a disposición del Hombre un conjunto prodigioso de medios sin resolver en absoluto el problema de los fines". Además, la ciencia se ha convertido en un proceso autónomo y fragmentado en cada vez más estrechas especializaciones al que "ninguna instancia superior es capaz de imponer un límite y de imprimir dirección, control o freno". Por ello "a menudo se tiene la impresión de que el desarrollo técnico-científico desborda al Hombre y le impone frecuentemente situaciones inesperadas, difíciles y llenas de incógnitas". Las formas de potencia exterior y mecánica de sus bombas, sus cohetes o su revolución tecnológica dejan, en cualquier caso, invariable al Hombre en sí, que sigue tan preso o más que antes de sus debilidades, sus bajas pasiones, su confusión y sus miedos. El Hombre actual no eleva su estatura moral, intelectual o espiritual por ser capaz de ir en cohete hasta la Luna, de producir seres humanos en laboratorio o de matar a miles de criaturas en cinco minutos gracias a la técnica.

La misma degradación que afecta al conocimiento se encuentra hoy, según Evola, en la cultura. La cultura occidental está neutralizada en su influjo, dividida en dominios particulares sin unidad orgánica y se halla privada de todo carácter objetivo, participando de esta forma en los procesos disolutorios de la época. Evola considera que la antítesis decretada entre cultura y política es "una de las manifestaciones más típicas de esa neutralización de la cultura". El contrario normal y fecundo de esta situación no es, para Evola, una cultura al servicio del poder y de la ideología en el sentido degradado de hoy, sino la existencia de una idea axial, de un símbolo elemental y central de una civilización dada, "que manifiesta su fuerza y ejerce una acción paralela y a menudo invisible tanto sobre el plano político (con todos los valores, no sólo materiales, que deberían referirse a un verdadero Estado), como sobre el plano del pensamiento, de la cultura y de las artes". Para Evola esa vieja idea axial hoy perdida es en el caso de la civilización occidental el "ideal del Imperio", ideal que se forjó en el mundo antiguo y medieval y que países como España contribuyeron a mantener en los Siglos de Oro. Evola entiende por tal cosa una gran organización política más allá de particularismos etnicistas y territoriales, organizada con criterios de excelencia y vertebrada por los valores transcendentes característicos de nuestra civilización.

Al analizar la situación del arte moderno, Evola subraya sus tendencias morbosas e intimistas, que dan la espalda al plano sobre el que actúan las grandes fuerzas históricas y políticas y se retiran al mundo de la subjetividad privada del artista no dando valor más que a lo psicológico y a lo formalmente 'interesante'. Joyce, Proust o Gide son, en la literatura, ejemplos acabados de esta tendencia. En ocasiones a esta orientación se asocia la idea del 'arte puro', esto es, del mero formalismo rodeando a un contenido más o menos insignificante. Las innumerables vanguardias e ismos no tienen mucho más valor, afirmación que resulta significativa en la pluma de alguien como Evola, que fue una de las figuras señeras del dadaísmo pictórico italiano. El significado de estas vanguardias "se reduce a una revuelta estéril, reflejo del proceso general de disolución. Reflejan el estado de crisis, pero no aportan nada constructivo, estable o duradero". Su recorrido, además, es corto. Pronto acaban convertidas en un nuevo 'academicismo', una nueva convención, y entran como un producto de consumo más en los circuitos comerciales. En el fondo el arte de hoy, separado de todo contexto orgánico y necesario, se ve reducido al absurdo, convertido en un artículo de lujo para parásitos ociosos. "Si se consideran objetivamente los procesos en curso", observa Evola, "se siente nítidamente que el arte ya no tiene porvenir, que su posición es cada vez más marginal con respecto a la existencia y que su valor se reduce al de un artículo de gran lujo". Al asomarse a la literatura, el panorama no es mejor. "Su fondo constante es el fetichismo de las relaciones humanas, de los problemas sentimentales, sexuales o sociales de individuos sin importancia". Se ha impuesto un realismo inferior, corrosivo y derrotista, denuncia Evola, en el que "directa o indirectamente se mina todo ideal, se hace mofa de todo principio y se reducen los valores estéticos, lo justo, lo verdaderamente noble y digno a simples palabras; y todo ello sin obedecer siquiera a una tendencia declarada". Frente a este realismo inferior Evola postula un realismo positivo que afirma la existencia de valores "que para el tipo humano diferenciado no se reducen a ficciones ni fantasías, sino que tienen el valor de realidades absolutas. Entre éstas figuran el coraje espiritual, el honor, la rectitud, la veracidad o la fidelidad. Una existencia humana que ignora esto no es plenamente real, es infrarreal. Para el Hombre diferenciado, a pesar de la disolución presente, estos valores siguen siendo intocables".

La música tampoco escapa al clima imperante. En el terreno de la música culta la disolución ha seguido dos vías: la tecnicidad fría y cerebral del dodecafonismo y la música serial y una inmersión en lo físico que toma a las cosas y los impulsos elementales como temas inspiradores (iniciada con el impresionismo francés y la música nacionalista). Últimamente se ha llegado ya a una especie de "música glaciar" con composiciones "cuya extrema abstracción formal es análoga a las puras entidades algebraicas de la física más reciente o, en otro terreno, a cierto surrealismo. Son fuerzas sonoras liberadas de las estructuras tradicionales que empujan hacia un meandro tecnicista que sólo el álgebra pura de la composición preserva de una completa disolución en lo amorfo, por ejemplo en la intensidad de los timbres descarnados y atómicamente disociados". Fuera de la música culta, que por otra parte tiene un alcance cada vez más minoritario, la música folclórica ha desaparecido y lo que domina la esfera cotidiana son las diferentes variantes del pop, músicas elementales de diversión o distracción, a menudo vehículos idóneos para la transmisión de toda clase de influencias psíquicas negativas.

Disuelta la moral y el individuo, disueltos el conocimiento, la cultura y las artes, el dominio socio-político estalla igualmente. Entre todos los dominios de la vida moderna es el socio-político "aquel en el cual, por efecto de los procesos generales de disolución, aparece de una manera más manifiesta la ausencia de una estructura que posea el carisma de una verdadera legitimidad para ligarse a significados superiores". Señala Evola que en la época actual "no existe un Estado que pueda, por su propia naturaleza, reivindicar un principio de autoridad verdadera e inalienable" ni que pueda considerarse ajustado a una concepción transcendente de la política. Hoy sólo existen aparatos representativos y administrativos, no Estados que sean la encarnación de un ideal superior. No hay tampoco verdaderos estadistas, la clase dirigente actual no tiene ningún carisma, ninguna virtud superior. "Del mismo modo que ya no existe un verdadero Estado, tampoco existe un partido o un movimiento que se presente como defensor de ideales superiores por los que valga la pena luchar". "A pesar de la variedad de etiquetas", observa Evola, "el mundo actual de los partidos se reduce a un régimen de politicastros que juegan a menudo el papel de hombres de paja al servicio de intereses financieros, industriales o sindicales. Por lo demás la situación general es tal que incluso si existieran partidos o movimientos de otro tipo ya no tendrían ninguna audiencia en las masas desarraigadas, dado que estas masas sólo reaccionan positivamente a favor de quienes le prometen ventajas materiales y 'conquistas sociales'. Hoy en día en política sólo puede actuarse en el plano de las fuerzas pasionales y subintelectuales, fuerzas que por su misma naturaleza carecen de toda estabilidad. Sobre estas fuerzas se apoyan los demagogos, los dirigentes de masas, los fabricantes de mitos y los manipuladores de la opinión pública". Es por esto por lo que aunque hoy aparecieran líderes dignos de ese nombre –personas que apelasen "a fuerzas e intereses de otro tipo, que no prometieran ventajas materiales, que no consintieran en prostituirse o degradarse para asegurarse un poder efímero, precario e informe"-, estos líderes muy probablemente no tendrían ninguna influencia en la situación actual.

Pasando del dominio político al propiamente social, Evola observa que todas las unidades orgánicas de la sociedad se han disuelto o están en vías de hacerlo y lo que existe es esencialmente una masa inestable de individuos aislados contenidos por estructuras exteriores o movida por corrientes colectivas amorfas. Las 'jerarquías' existentes son meramente dinerarias y la excelencia no tiene ya ningún valor en el ordenamiento social. La institución familiar también está en manifiesta crisis, zarandeada entre los intentos de sabotaje por un lado y las reacciones moralizantes vacías y el conformismo burgués, por otro. Desde el punto de vista de Evola todo esto no es de extrañar: "la familia ha cesado desde hace tiempo de tener un significado superior y de estar cimentada por valores vivos de orden transcendente". El carácter orgánico y en cierto sentido heroico que ofrecía su unidad en otros tiempos se ha perdido, al igual que se ha desvanecido el último barniz residual de sacralidad. La familia moderna es para Evola una institución pequeño-burguesa, determinada por valores naturalistas, utilitarios, rutinarios, vulgares y en el mejor de los casos, sentimentales. La función fundamental de la familia, la procreación, se reduce hoy sencilla y groseramente a una continuidad de la sangre, no a la continuidad más esencial de un depósito espiritual e histórico y de una herencia de valores e ideales. "Por otra parte", se pregunta Evola, "¿cómo podría ser de otra forma si su jefe natural, el padre, es hoy en día casi un extraño, incluso físicamente, al estar preso del engranaje de la vida material de esta sociedad absurda? ¿Qué autoridad moral o espiritual puede revestir el padre si hoy es sólo una máquina de fabricar dinero?". Para colmo ahora esto mismo se puede decir también de la madre, convertida en otra máquina de fabricar dinero o en un individuo de vida frívola y mundana, incapaz en ambos casos de mejorar el clima interior de la familia y de ejercer sobre ella una influencia positiva. A la pérdida del prestigio paterno le sigue el distanciamiento o la rebeldía de los hijos y la ruptura, "cada día más nítida y brutal", entre las generaciones mayores y las jóvenes. Este corte de la continuidad espiritual entre las generaciones se ve agravado, además, por un ritmo de vida cada vez más rápido y desordenado.

La misma situación de derrumbamiento que se ve en la institución familiar afecta a la unión de hombre y mujer. Hoy se han hecho frecuentes en Occidente la sucesión frívola y atropellada de emparejamientos y de rupturas hasta el punto de que parece "una especie de prostitución o ayuntamiento libre legalizado". El matrimonio burgués –que tomaba sus bases de la concepción católica y puritana protestante del matrimonio– se ha venido abajo. Desde hace unas décadas esta convención burguesa "se ha estrellado contra la práctica corriente y contestataria del sexo libre" que reivindica la promiscuidad y "la superación de las inhibiciones y los tabúes represivos". Dentro de un marco igualmente naturalista y profano (el Occidente cristiano carece de modelos de matrimonio genuinamente sagrado) el péndulo se ha ido de un extremo a otro: de una visión del sexo pacata y atormentada a otra promiscua y burdelesca. El resultado es una de las características más llamativas de nuestro tiempo: el poder obsesivo y desequilibrado de los asuntos venéreos hasta el punto de que el sexo y cierto de tipo falsificado de mujer son los dos motivos dominantes de la sociedad actual. Como dice Evola, existe una especie de "intoxicación sexual crónica manifestada de mil maneras en la vida pública y las costumbres a través de un erotismo abstracto que lo impregna todo". En este clima se comercializan "espejismos de la sexualidad de masas" en forma de ídolos femeninos que son alimentados por la televisión, el cine, la prensa, las revistas ilustradas y el mundo del espectáculo y la moda. "La mayoría de estas mujeres 'fatales' de rasgos supuestamente fascinantes", señala Evola, "en realidad como personas tienen cualidades sexuales muy mediocres y decadentes, siendo su fondo existencial el de mujeres vulgares y neuróticas".

La pretendida 'liberación' sexual de nuestra época es, para el autor, una vulgar inversión. Señala Evola que habría verdadera liberación si se tomara conciencia de los aspectos auténticamente importantes del sexo, si se reaccionara contra las vulgaridades que obturan sus posibilidades más elevadas y si se tomara posición contra la fetichización de las relaciones interpersonales. Pero eso, evidentemente, no ocurre. Las verdaderas implicaciones de la presente 'liberación sexual' son para el autor muy otras: la entronización del "sexo disociado" que conduce "a una banalización y a un naturalismo de las relaciones entre hombre y mujer, a un materialismo y un inmoralismo expeditivo y fácil en un régimen donde faltan las condiciones más elementales para realizar experiencias sexuales de verdadero valor e intensidad". El sexo se convierte así en un sucedáneo más de los muchos que produce la vida moderna, usado como las drogas "para conseguir sensaciones exasperadas que ayuden a llenar el vacío de la existencia". Y esta conversión del sexo en sucedáneo dentro de una atmósfera de venerización abstracta y colectiva provoca una aguda despolarización de los sexos que convierte a la virilidad y la feminidad en sucedáneos también, descargándolas de la fuerza transcendente de la que cada una de ellas es portadora.

Como es lógico, en este clima general de disolución, la situación de las religiones es considerada igualmente lamentable. Para Evola un fenómeno típico de las fases terminales de una civilización es que "las religiones pierden su dimensión superior, se adormecen, se secularizan y dejan de cumplir su función original". Refiriéndose a la rama católica del cristianismo Evola señalaba en Gli uomini e le rovine, otro de sus libros, la lamentable falta de nivel de la que hoy se puede ser testigo: "el peso de las preocupaciones de carácter social y moralista es mucho mayor que el concedido a la vía sapiencial, la contemplación y la ascesis, puntos clave de toda forma superior de religiosidad. De hecho hoy las principales preocupaciones del catolicismo son un moralismo sexual pequeño-burgués y un paternalismo asistencial". Es entonces, con esta situación decadente de la religión regular, cuando aparece "un neo-espiritualismo evasivo, alienante, de compensación difusa, desarrollado fuera de las tradiciones regulares (incluso contra ellas) y sin la menor repercusión seria sobre la realidad". El uso bastardo que este neo-espiritualismo hace de ciertas doctrinas tradicionales de carácter interno lleva al descrédito de las mismas por la manera "deformada e ilegítima" en que por él son presentadas y propagadas.

Ante este clima general, todo esfuerzo de oposición frontal a las tendencias de la época es considerado inútil. Evola rechaza resueltamente la opción que consistiría en "apoyarse sobre lo que sobrevive del mundo burgués y defenderlo y tomarlo como base frente a las corrientes actuales de disolución y subversión más violentas, tras haber intentado reanimar esos restos con la ayuda de algunos valores más altos". Los valores burgueses, en realidad, son productos decadentes que para Evola no tienen mayor valor. La actitud existencial que preconiza será esa que el viejo adagio oriental denomina cabalgar el tigre. "Cuando un ciclo de civilización toca a su fin", escribe Evola, "es difícil obtener un resultado positivo oponiéndose directamente a las fuerzas en movimiento. La corriente es demasiado fuerte y uno sería arrastrado por ella. Lo esencial es no dejarse impresionar por la aparente omnipotencia de las fuerzas disolutorias de la época. Privadas de lazo con todo principio superior, estas fuerzas tienen, en realidad, un campo de acción limitado. Es preciso, pues, no dejarse hipnotizar por el presente ni por lo que nos rodea y contemplar las condiciones susceptibles de aparecer más tarde. La regla a seguir consistirá en dejar libre curso a las fuerzas de la época, permaneciendo firmes y dispuestos a actuar cuando el tigre, que no puede abalanzarse sobre quien lo cabalga, esté fatigado de correr". Se abandona, por tanto, la acción directa y se retira uno hacia posiciones más interiores.

Frente a la situación actual, sin embargo, no caben para Evola ni la desesperación ni el derrotismo. El Hombre diferenciado sabe que "cuando un ciclo termina, otro comienza, y el punto culminante del proceso disolutorio es también aquel en el cual se origina el enderezamiento en la dirección opuesta". Para un Hombre amante de la Transcendencia, dice Evola, el mundo actual resulta amargo y problemático, pero él sabe que no está aquí ni por un azar despiadado al que ha de resignarse con fe o con fatalismo, ni para librar una carrera de resistencia a fondo perdido. A ese tipo humano le corresponde la misión de velar en medio de la noche, en medio de las ruinas, y conservar la memoria de toda una herencia civilizatoria para que la continuidad con el pasado no se rompa. La vida es para él, en consecuencia, una aventura de importancia capital, cargada de sentido.

Evola señala, en fin, la esterilidad del 'mito de Oriente' en nuestras presentes circunstancias. "Entre quienes han reconocido la crisis del mundo moderno y han renunciado también a considerar a la civilización moderna como la civilización por excelencia, como el apogeo y la medida de cualquier otra, hay quienes han vuelto su mirada a Oriente, ya que allí ven subsistir una orientación tradicional y espiritual que desde hace tiempo ha dejado de ser en Occidente la base de organización efectiva de los diversos dominios de la existencia. Se han preguntado incluso si no podrían encontrar en Oriente puntos de referencia útiles para la reintegración de Occidente". Evola considera que si la mirada occidental al Oriente persigue contactos intelectuales y doctrinales esa búsqueda es legítima, aunque "al menos en parte podríamos encontrar ejemplos y referencias claras en nuestro propio pasado sin necesidad de recurrir a una civilización no occidental". Pero si lo que se persigue es la adopción de un marco existencial oriental "uno no puede hacerse ilusiones: Oriente sigue ahora la senda de degradación que nosotros hemos tardado varios siglos en recorrer. El 'mito de Oriente', fuera de los círculos minoritarios y aislados de quienes cultivan las disciplinas metafísicas, es por tanto falaz. El desierto crece y no hay ninguna otra civilización que pueda servirnos de apoyo. Debemos afrontar solos nuestros problemas".

En realidad, el autor insiste en una posibilidad que justifica el esfuerzo de mantener una perspectiva netamente occidental. Es el hecho de que si la fase final de la edad oscura ha arrancado antes entre nosotros, también podemos ser nosotros los primeros en superarla. Las demás civilizaciones han entrado en esta corriente más tardíamente y podrían hallarse en lo más agudo del proceso disolutorio cuando Occidente rebase el límite negativo y empiece a remontar. Nuestra civilización estaría, en ese caso, "cualificada para una nueva función de guía, muy diferente de la que ha realizado en el pasado con la civilización tecno-industrial y materialista, entonces ya periclitada, y cuyo único resultado ha sido la decadencia espiritual generalizada".

NOTAS
[i] Marguerite Yourcenar: El Tiempo, gran escultor, Madrid, Alfaguara, 1989.
[ii] César Martínez: "Metafísica del sexo de Julius Evola", Axis Mundi II, nº5, 1998.
[iii] Adolfo Morganti: "Julius Evola y el mundo budista italiano", en Julius Evola: La doctrina del despertar. El budismo y su finalidad práctica, Grijalbo, México DF, 1998.
[iv] Julius Evola: Cabalgar el tigre, Barcelona, Nuevo Arte Thor, 1987.

Métaphysique du sexe

Métaphysique du sexe

Ex: http://lagrandetouriste.blogspot.com

 

Né en 1898, mort en 1974, le baron Julius Evola était un penseur traditionnaliste. Qu'est-ce que la Tradition? Dans le monde indo-européen, c'est, entre autres héritages, une organisation sociale selon trois fonctions  ̶  religieuse, guerrière et économique. Mise en évidence par le philologue Georges Dumézil, ce sont, par exemple, les tripartitions Brahmanes/Kshatriyas/Vaisyas en Inde, Clergé/Noblesse/Tiers-État dans la France pré-révolutionnaire. De par sa naissance et sa conformation intérieure, Julius Evola se rattachait à l'ordre des guerriers. En ces temps troublés qui sont les nôtres, ses ouvrages sont donc à ranger dans toute bibliothèque dissidente qui se respecte.

Celui qui nous intéresse aujourd'hui s'intitule "Métaphysique du Sexe". Qu'est-ce que la métaphysique? Evola donne deux acceptions. La première est la définition philosophique courante: on appelle métaphysique la « recherche des principes et des significations ultimes ». La deuxième est étymologique: du grec μετά ("après", "au-delà de"), c'est la « science de ce qui est au-delà du physique ». Au sujet des sexes et des relations entre les sexes, Evola affirme que seule la métaphysique a quelque chose de valable à dire: « Que dans toute expérience intense de l'eros un rythme différent s'établisse, qu'un courant différent investisse et transporte, ou bien suspende, les facultés ordinaires de l'individu humain, que se produisent des ouvertures sur un monde autre   ̶  c'est ce qu'on a su ou pressenti depuis toujours. »

 

« Lorsque nous indiquerons les significations les plus profondes qui se cachent dans l'amour en général et même dans l'acte brutal qui l'exprime et l'accomplit  ̶  cet acte où « se forme un être multiple et monstrueux », où l'on dirait qu'homme et femme « cherchent à humilier, à sacrifier tout ce qu'il y a de beau en eux » (Barbusse), la plupart des lecteurs, peut-être, ne se reconnaîtra pas dans tout cela et pensera qu'il ne s'agit là que d'interprétations toutes personnelles, imaginaires et arbitraires, abstruses et "hermétiques". »

De même que la manipulation des formes géométriques pures permet l'édification d'architectures solides, il ne peut y avoir de science de l'homme sans idée de l'homme: une sexologie fondée sur le darwinisme est donc nulle et non avenue. « A une époque où il parait approprié (…) d'écrire Sélection Naturelle avec la majuscule, comme on le faisait pour le nom de Dieu », Evola affirme au contraire que le supérieur ne peut naître de l'inférieur. L'homme ne dérive pas du singe par évolution; c'est le singe qui dérive de l'homme, par involution. Evola tient pour exact ce qui fut pressenti par certains scientifiques non-alignés (Kohlbrugge, Marconi, Dacqué, etc.), à savoir que les espèces animales seraient des « spécialisations dégénératives de possibilités comprises dans l'homme ». L'ontogénèse ne répète pas la phylogénèse: l'embryon humain passe outre là où plantes et animaux s'arrêtent, parce qu'il est appelé à un développement supérieur. Par conséquent, rien ne saurait être dit sur la sexualité de l'homme qui ne tienne compte de sa destinée particulière: « Nous n'envisagerons pas la sexualité humaine comme un prolongement de la sexualité animale ; nous envisagerons au contraire  ̶  et nous dirons pourquoi  ̶  la sexualité animale  ̶  en elle-même, chez les bêtes et telle qu'elle se présente aussi, éventuellement, chez l'homme  ̶  comme la chute et la régression d'une impulsion qui n'appartient pas à la sphère biologique. »

De sorte que la reproduction, si elle est une conséquence de la sexualité couramment observée, n'en constitue pas pour autant le but. A la suite du poète russe Vladimir Soloviev, Evola remarque que de nombreux organismes se multiplient de manière asexuelle, et que le fait sexuel n'intervient que dans la reproduction des organismes complexes. En outre, « plus nous montons haut dans l'échelle des organismes, plus la puissance de multiplication s'amoindrit, tandis qu'au contraire augmente la force de l'inclination sexuelle… Enfin, chez l'être humain, la multiplication se fait beaucoup moins que dans tout le règne animal, alors que l'amour sexuel atteint l'importance et l'intensité les plus grandes. » (Soloviev) Evola mentionne aussi le baiser, que l'espèce n'exige en rien pour se multiplier, et qui est pourtant érotiquement nécessaire. (Les amants des peuples qui ne connaissent pas le baiser ont d'autres pratiques, comme le fait de se toucher les fronts, qui permettent pareillement le "mélange des souffles".)

Le "principe de plaisir" énoncé par Sigmund Freud, père de la psychanalyse, ne convient pas mieux à une métaphysique du sexe. Misérablement compensé par le "principe de réalité", il est pour Evola symptomatique d'une époque où la sexualité est ravalée au rang d'opium des masses, et où ses potentialités subtiles sont presque systématiquement avortées, faute d'avoir conservé les connaissances traditionnelles qui s'y rapportaient. De quel plaisir est-il question, quand le simple contact mutuel des mains suffit à électriser les amants? "Dans la "normalité" de l'eros, il n'y a pas l'"idée" du plaisir en tant que motivation déterminante ", écrit Evola. "Il y a la pulsion qui, éveillée dans certaines circonstances par la polarité sexuelle en tant que telle, provoque à elle seule un état d'ivresse jusqu'à la crise du "plaisir" ».

Le terme de "polarité sexuelle" est central: il signifie que le masculin et le féminin sont à l'eros ce que le Nord et le Sud sont au champ magnétique terrestre. Selon la philosophie chinoise, il suffit même que deux individus de sexe opposé soit placés l'un à côté de l'autre, sans contact corporel, pour que s'éveille cette énergie spéciale appelée "tsing", dont l'intensité varie en fonction des degrés de "yin" et de "yang" présents en chacun d'eux. En Islam, la très stricte séparation des sexes est réputée porter cette tension à son maximum. De manière générale, pour l'ensemble des tenants de la Tradition, la différence des sexes n'est pas un constat mais un axiome. Une anthropologie fondée sur l'observation est sans valeur, puisque rien d'absolu n'est observable. A celle-ci, Evola oppose non pas la "déconstruction de genre" chère aux progressistes, mais un savoir primordial, fondé sur les principes.

 

Le caractère "fluidique", "magique" de l'attraction des sexes est comme la lettre volée d'Edgar Poe: invisible parce qu'évident. Les écrivains en témoignent mieux que les psychiatres. Evola reprend l'image de la "cristallisation" formulée par Stendhal: comme les branches des arbres se couvrent de cristaux dans les régions salines de Salzbourg, le désir de l'amant cristallise autour de l'aimée comme un halo d'extraordinaireté, propre à induire cet état de fascination qui est le pré-requis du « traumatisme de l'étreinte ». C'est ainsi qu'en toute inconscience, les amants mettent en œuvre des techniques spirituelles. Dans son Liber de arte amandi, daté du XIIème siècle, le clerc André Le Châpelain a défini l'amour comme une « agonie due à une méditation extrême sur une personne de sexe opposé ».

Pour Evola, comme pour Aristophane dans Le Banquet de Platon, l'eros est une vocation divine inscrite à même le corps, qui n'est d'abord sensible que comme dépossession de soi. De cette vocation, le sexe anatomique constitue le signe. A ce titre, l'Androgyne figure à la fois le but et l'obstacle: coïncidence miraculeuse des opposés, point de jonction des parallèles à l'horizon, il est la solution de l'énigme des tristesses post-coïtales. Abaissé au rang d'idéal consumériste, l'Androgyne perd sa signification, mais non pas son pouvoir. Ce n'est certes pas un hasard s'il figurait en bonne place dans la symbolique alchimiste, et sur le sceau du théologien Pierre Abélard, dont la liaison passionnée avec l'abbesse Héloïse d'Argenteuil, au XII siècle également, compte parmi les grandes amours de l'Histoire.

"Métaphysique du sexe" est un ouvrage extrêmement dense, qui éclaire quantité de mythes, de hiérogamies, et de rituels archaïques tels que la prostitution sacrée, les orgies saisonnières, le mariage hétérosexuel. Julius Evola y fait l'exégèse des plus rebattus des lieux communs de l'amour ("Je t'ai dans la peau", etc.) et de ses métaphores les plus persistantes: le cœur, la foudre, la mort. En passant, il évoque une tradition issue de la chevalerie médiévale nommée Amour Courtois, dont la branche ésotérique, qui n'est pas sans lien avec les Templiers, a fourni à la littérature européenne quelques-uns de ses plus magistraux chefs-d'œuvre. Plus près de nous, il n'est pas anodin que l'artiste catholique Jean-Louis Costes, qui se qualifie lui-même de « Christophe Colomb du cul », ait été rattaché à cette tradition par certains commentateurs.

Il y aurait encore beaucoup à dire sur ce livre, et sur ses limites. Nous nous en tiendrons à cette brève introduction, et souhaitons qu'elle contribue à l'effort de guerre...

De la culture grecque aux appels à moderniser le Coran

LETTRE A MES AMIS MUSULMANS

 

De la culture grecque aux appels à moderniser le Coran

Michel Lhomme*

Ex: http://metamag.fr

Le Coran européen ? Pour discuter avec l'Islam, il faut d'abord reconnaître la nature sacrée de son texte. Nous le reconnaissons. Pour discuter maintenant de manière critique le Coran, faudrait-il reconnaître que le texte coranique a été simplement inspiré au Prophète (PSL-la Paix sur Lui, comme la Tradition l'impose) et que ce n’est pas Dieu qui a donné le texte mais que ce sont les hommes qui ont donné le texte. Nous ne le croyons pas nécessaire. Néanmoins, si le Coran est d’essence divine, en revanche, sa formulation, son interprétation est l’œuvre d’humains marqués par toutes sortes d'influences mais surtout et avant tout par l’influence de la culture grecque. Le Coran à ce titre est aussi européen.

Le Coran est-il divin ?

On connaît la flèche empoisonnée qui, vous est souvent adressé, ô mes amis ! Le Prophète n'était qu'un illettré, il ne pouvait pas rédiger un texte d’une telle facture. Ne vous sentez pas obligés de batailler sur le même terrain et de reconnaître que le Prophète n’était pas un illettré, argumentant qu’en outre, il était entouré d’hommes de science et d’historiens qui auraient contribué à la composition du texte. Nous posons ici indirectement la question du problème de la traduction théologique commune de « nabiyumummiyum » par « prophète illettré » au lieu de « prophète de la communauté », de la  « Oumma » comme le sens pourtant y invite.

Au cœur de la question de la modernisation du Coran

La question est celle de savoir si le Coran a été révélé au Prophète (PSL) dans sa formulation actuelle sans que ce dernier n’ait eu à ajouter ou à retrancher  le moindre mot ou si le Coran est plutôt le récit humain d’un message divin. Autrement dit, si le Coran est la Révélation ou un texte inspiré de Dieu mais composé par des hommes. Avant de nous prononcer sur cette question en soi difficile, il nous semble nécessaire de nous pencher sur quelques problèmes et justement celui des similitudes entre le Coran et la culture grecque.

Les similitudes de ce que dit Mahomet (PSL) avec un certain platonisme nous ont toujours frappés. Elles pourraient signifier que le texte sacré a été rédigé par des hommes et la communauté exilée et authentifiée des platoniciens de Médine. Or, il nous faut partir du principe que le Coran est la parole de Dieu, révélée dans son sens comme dans son libellé exact par l’intermédiaire de l’ange Gabriel. Dès lors, comment son intégrité a-t-elle pu être préservée jusqu’à nos jours ? Retournons à la lettre du texte coranique puisqu'il nous prescrit que «Si vous divergez sur quelque chose entre vous, revenez à Allah et à Son Messager, si vous croyez en Allah et au Jour Dernier. Cela est meilleur et plus convenable comme résolution finale" (Sourate 4, verset 59). Depuis l’aube des temps, on peut admettre que Dieu  s’est  toujours adressé aux peuples  à travers leur  langue. Dans la sourate 41 (versets 2 et 3), il dit ceci à propos du Coran : « C’est une révélation descendue de la part du Tout Miséricordieux, du Très Miséricordieux  (...)  Un livre dont les versets sont détaillés et clairement exposés, un Coran arabe pour des gens qui savent ». La langue est un moyen de communication autant qu’un support culturel, il est tout à fait compréhensible que, du message transmis, transparaissent des traits culturels du peuple qui l’a reçu en premier lieu. Certes, le message coranique est destiné à l’univers tout entier, mais Dieu a choisi de s’adresser directement au peuple arabe du 7ème siècle  en utilisant sa langue et  donc quelques aspects de ses fondements socio-culturels. C’était pour lui le meilleur moyen de faire comprendre le message à un peuple qui devait ensuite s’acquitter de la délicate mission de le diffuser à travers le monde. Les similitudes entre le Coran et la culture grecque ne signifient donc pas que le texte coranique porte l’empreinte de l’homme. C’est d’ailleurs pour donner des gages de l’origine divine des versets du Coran que  Dieu a délibérément choisi, pour porter son message, un homme qui, jusque-là, ne savait ni lire, ni écrire. Ainsi, à notre question première de savoir si le message coranique puisse être porté par un illettré, le Coran nous apprend que c’était précisément le meilleur moyen d’écarter les doutes sur l’identité de l’auteur des versets. A la sourate 29 (verset 48), il est dit en effet que « Avant cela, tu ne lisais pas de livre, ni n’écrivais de ta main droite, car autrement, ceux qui nient la vérité auraient émis des doutes ». 

Dans le rapport critique que certains ont à l'égard de l'Islam, ils ne prennent jamais en compte l’exacte mesure de la dimension divine dans le processus de la révélation. En s’interrogeant sur la pertinence du choix porté sur un illettré pour accomplir une mission prophétique, les critiques modernes de l'Islam brandissent un argument qui ressemble étrangement à celui que les notables mecquois opposaient au Prophète (PSL) lorsqu’ils lui disaient : « Pourquoi n’a-t-on pas fait descendre le Coran sur une haute personnalité de l’une des deux villes [La Mecque et Taîf]? » (Sourate 43 verset 31). En vérité, l’aptitude à recevoir  un message de cette nature, à l’assimiler et à mener à bien la mission prophétique ne tient absolument pas au statut d’intellectuel ou à celui de supposé « inculte ». Celui qui, du néant, a créé les Cieux et la Terre, qui « fait sortir le vivant du mort et le mort du vivant » (Sourate 3 verset 27) n’est-il pas en mesure de faire d’un illettré, le dirigeant, le meneur d’hommes à la dimension exceptionnelle que fut le prophète Muhammad (PSL) ? Comme nous le rappelle le Coran, il  est important de garder à l’esprit qu’en définitive, Dieu « sait mieux que quiconque où placer son message » (sourate 6 verset 124) et  quand IL décide de porter  son choix sur quelqu’un, IL  le dote des qualités et vertus  requises  pour être à la hauteur de la mission. En témoigne le verset suivant par lequel Allah apaise les  inquiétudes du Prophète (PSL) sur sa capacité à retenir le message. « Nous te ferons réciter le Coran de sorte que tu n’oublieras pas – sauf ce qu’Allah aura voulu » (Sourate 87 versets 6et 7). 

Il est donc clair que, pas plus que l’un quelconque de ses compagnons, le Prophète (PSL) ne pouvait composer le texte coranique. D’ailleurs, il faut relever que, dès le début de la Révélation, certains n’avaient pas manqué d’attribuer à des savants tapis dans l’ombre, le mérite d’avoir composé le texte coranique au profit du Prophète (PSL). La réponse  était alors venue d'Allah lui-même : « Si vous avez des doutes sur ce que nous avons révélé à notre serviteur, tâchez donc de produire une sourate semblable et appelez vos témoins que vous adorez en dehors d’Allah, si vous êtes véridiques. Si vous n’y parvenez pas, et à coup sûr, vous n’y parviendrez jamais, prenez garde au feu qu’alimenteront les hommes et les pierres, lequel est réservé aux infidèles ». (Sourate 2 verset 23). Au regard de ces considérations, il ne fait aucun doute que le Coran est, dans son essence comme dans sa formulation, une œuvre exclusivement divine. Mais s’il en est ainsi, comment un texte aussi long (plus de 6 000 versets) a-t-il pu être préservé jusqu’à nos jours ? 

Comment l’intégrité du texte coranique a-t-elle pu être préservée ? 

Pour préserver l’intégrité du texte que lui dictait l’ange Gabriel, le Prophète (PSL) devait le mémoriser avant de le  faire transcrire par ses scribes. C’est précisément pour s’acquitter convenablement de cette noble tâche qu’il  se montrait particulièrement pressé de retenir les passages qui lui étaient révélés. Dieu a  tenu à le rassurer  en lui disant ceci : « Ne remue pas ta langue dans ton impatience de réciter le Coran. C’est à Nous, en vérité, qu’incombent son assemblage et sa récitation. Quand Nous lirons, suis-en la lecture. A Nous, ensuite de l’exposer  clairement » (Sourate 75 versets 16 à 19). C’est cet exercice de mémorisation, auquel le Prophète (PSL) avait également astreint  bon nombre de ses compagnons, qui a permis de sauvegarder, aux premières  heures de la révélation, le texte coranique. Par ailleurs, il est  important de préciser que la révélation s’est poursuivie  sur une durée de 23 ans. Or, le Coran étant composé de 6600 versets environ, un simple calcul arithmétique permet de se rendre compte que,  grâce à ce caractère graduel de la révélation, le Prophète (PSL) et ses compagnons n’ont eu à mémoriser, en moyenne, qu’un verset par jour. En dotant le Prophète (PSL) d’une grande capacité de mémorisation et en procédant à  une révélation graduelle du Coran, Dieu avait ainsi réuni les conditions objectives de la préservation du texte sacré, comme il s’y est, du reste, engagé dans le verset 9 de la sourate 15 : « En vérité, c’est Nous qui avons fait descendre le Coran et c’est Nous qui en sommes le gardien ». C’est, incontestablement,  une marque de la Sagesse et de l’Omnipotence de Dieu que d’avoir ainsi permis de rendre  relativement facile une tâche qui pouvait paraître, à priori, insurmontable.

La valeur de l’islam 

Dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, l’islam est la religion mondiale qui résiste le plus activement à la force du mondialisme. Pour nous, l'Islam n'a donc pas du tout à s'illuminer, à s'éclairer, à se moderniser autrement dit à se séculariser, à s'individualiser. L'Islam est le front vivant, le cœur actif du traditionalisme. Dans son adresse à Marcel Gauchet, Coralie Delaume évoque l'islamo-fascisme, le ''fascisme vert''. Il importe de rappeler que cette réduction de l'Islam, reductio ad hitlerum classique contre toute pensée dissidente - et l'Islam est une pensée dissidente de la modernité -  a d'abord été professée par l’idéologue de la « Fin de l’Histoire » Francis Fukuyama. C'est lui qui, avec Huntington a tenté d’introduire ce terme d’ « islamo-fascisme » pour mieux discréditer la foi et la civilisation musulmane. Si l'Islam est maintenant au banc des accusés, c'est qu'il est avec l'orthodoxie le dernier champ de bataille de la modernité, de cette postmodernité que nous exécrons jusqu'aux tripes. Cela suffit pour déterminer pour nous la valeur et l’importance de l’Islam.

La question qu'on ne manquera pas de nous poser à nous, philosophes occidentaux est celle de savoir si l'on peut aborder le contenu du livre saint de la religion musulmane avec l'esprit critique dont on use depuis la Réforme dans le cadre  biblique ? Nous disons oui mais attention, il ne s'agit en aucune façon de moderniser l'Islam, de le séculariser. C'est le Coran à la lettre que nous exigeons car justement, c'est ce Coran à la lettre qui peut récuser le Coran des Purs (celui des salafistes, des wahabites, des tafkirites), ce Coran intégriste et fondamentaliste qui souhaiterait prendre la place de l'Islam traditionnel comme les évangélistes, les mouvements pentecôtistes ont dans l'Eglise catholique réussi à dénaturer le message évangélique communautariste pour n'en faire qu'un discours individualiste et moralisateur, libéral et économique.

Deux dangers vous menacent 

Le premier, c'est de vouloir céder à l'inclination « politiquement correcte » d'une époque tellement hantée par le choc des civilisations que certains islamologues et imams en viennent à vouloir étouffer la réalité traditionnelle du texte coranique pour masquer les divergences fondamentales non pas de l'Islam mais des Islams. Partant, même si la discussion des dogmes s'apparente à une démarche offensante, vous ne devez céder en rien. Ainsi, j'ai entendu un musulman qui, étant attaqué sur la question stupide de savoir si Mahomet (PSL) respectait vraiment les femmes, répondre « Oui, puisqu'il en a eu de nombreuses ! ». Ne commettez pas cette erreur. C'est le piège de l'empathie. Vous y perdrez votre Coran sacré.

Le deuxième danger, c'est l'islamophobie présente : dépeindre l'Islam sous des traits négatifs et politiques. La connaissance critique en vient alors à succomber sous une avalanche de discours nauséeux qui dénoncent à brûle pourpoint les effets sociaux pervers de la religion de Mahomet (PSL) (voir les positions du philosophe Rémy Brague ). Elle se nourrit des exactions politiques ou comme disait Baudrillard de l'exorcisme politique. C'est le prisme de la diatribe philosophique dite éclairée qui depuis 1789 n'a cherché qu'à dissoudre les liens communautaires pour établir le règne illimité du capital et du matérialisme. 

Certes, il serait évidemment grand temps de revenir à la Raison, à l'étude, à la réflexion au-dessus de l'opinion et de la passion anti cléricale et anti religieuse. Mais pour cela, il nous faudrait ensemble et philosophiquement dans l'exégèse restituer les concepts de consonance arabe à leur naissance, dans leur généalogie et leurs évolutions, ces concepts que quotidiennement on voit pourtant malmener, vilipender à la radio et même dans les derniers titres commerciaux de médiocre écrivain nihiliste. J'ai peu de place. Mais prenons par exemple le mot « sharia », terme si couramment évoqué et que nous traduisons par « loi religieuse ». La « sharia » occupe dans les sociétés arabo-musulmanes une place inversement proportionnelle à celle qu'elle tient dans le Coran. Vous savez comme moi que le livre sacré contient 500 versets normatifs sur un total de 6300. Ensuite, si on se penche d'un peu plus près sur ces versets normatifs, on découvre que ces normes représentent un ensemble hétéroclite, une voie pratique faite d'actes obligatoires, recommandés, permis, blâmables ou interdits. On est bien loin du code de châtiments ou de mutilations qui  ravageraient les Purs ou ses ennemis. La sharia n'intègre pas la totalité des actes humains.

Pour répondre par avance aux critiques

Ill est vrai qu'il y a dans le texte coranique une stratification de l'humanité au regard de la sharia. Au sommet de l'espèce humaine figurent les messagers et les prophètes, puis les « adamiens », entendez les hommes mâles et non femelles musulmans de condition libre, enfin les « adamiens » sans foi ni loi, c'est-à-dire, moi, le chrétien  et le païen. De droit, tuer un païen n'entraîne aucune poursuite judiciaire; réduire une païenne en esclavage n'est pas réprouvé. L'esclavagisme sans ces textes n'aurait en effet jamais pu connaître une telle fortune dans les sociétés musulmanes d'hier comme parfois d'aujourd'hui. C'est tout le Coran, alternance de paroles de tolérance et de propos d'une dureté inouïe. Mais reconnaissons que la Bible ne vaut pas mieux. On y massacre et mutile à tour de bras.

De plus, il n'y a pas un Islam mais des Islams. Il y a le chiisme, le sunnisme, le At-tassavuf et entre tout cela, une question qui me préoccupe personnellement le culte des saints, la question ésotérique, la pensée traditionnelle, l'eschatologie, le sens théologique de l'Histoire, la venue du Mahdi. Ne faites donc pas de l'Islam une grande parodie, un « Self Islam », un Islam de Self-Service, un Islam  anglicisé et indianisé. un Islam de l'autonomie du Sujet ou du Soi, l'Islam  d'Abdennour Bidar, membre de l'Observatoire de la laïcité. L'Islam ne peut se délier du Coran et de la commaunauté, de l'oumma.  Ne vous abaissez pas aux modernes mais au contraire soulignez les valeurs radicales de la Tradition, valeurs qui demeurent incompatibles avec la modernité et la postmodernité, avec la Gay Pride, les jupes courtes, avec l'athéisme d'Etat, l'immoralité et l'obscénité de leur matérialisme marchand. Si nous avions commencé au début par souligner dans le domaine intellectuel, les similarités de l'Islam avec un certain néo-platonisme, c'est que cela devrait nous conduire à approfondir ensemble la critique de la modernité car il va de soi et j'insiste que si vous êtes la Tradition, vous ne représentez pas la Tradition à vous tout seul. Vous savez comme moi qu'Allah lorsqu'il est en colère contre les mécréants, ne trouve rien de mieux que de leur lancer : « Soyez des singes abjects ! ». J'ai toujours savouré dans l'Islam cette hauteur comme la définition du Soleil qui est de genre féminin en arabe et qui forme couple avec la Lune, de genre masculin, deux astres fascinants que Mahomet (PSL) voyait « au service des Humains » mais interdisait de vénérer. C'est vrai nous n'avons pas les mêmes cultes mais nous avons les mêmes combats : redresser le champ de ruines spirituel et moral que nous a légué la modernité. Et pour le faire, il faut aussi vous dire - et la manipulation de masse Charlie en est une saisissante et terrifiante illustration - que cette modernisation que l'on vous enjoint d'adhérer a fini en réalité par tuer l’individu réellement libre, de l’Ancien Monde, du  monde des Grecs. En voulant émanciper l’individu, regardez comme ils l'ont asservi en le déracinant par l'anomie et la névrose sociale, le développement du marché et la dépendance à la consommation. Regardez vos quartiers difficiles ? Non seulement on vous a arraché à votre terre pour nous appauvrir mais on a voulu vous arracher ensuite par la laïcité à votre culture, à votre langue. Vous avez été les cobayes du grand remplacement et l'on ose aujourd'hui vous désigner comme les brebis expiatoires de leurs échecs. Sors tes papiers et sois Charlie !... Il est d’ailleurs amusant de constater que le plus grand grief que l'on vous fait, plus grave encore que les attentats que vous projetez ou commettez, c’est « le rejet du mode de vie occidental ». Horreur ! En effet, peut-on imaginer plus atroce blasphème ?

* Notre collaborateur, Michel Lhomme est enseignant, philosophe, ancien professeur de Théologie à la faculté de Théologie de Lima, diplômé d'arabe littéraire (Paris 3 - Censier). Il a vécu de nombreuses années en terres musulmanes. 

 

Odin, Buddha, Pan & Darwin

Peter Bickenbach: Odin, Buddha, Pan & Darwin – eine Rezension

Ellen Kositza

Ex: http://www.sezession.de

(Rezension aus Sezession 63 / Dezember 2014)

Peter Bickenbach setzt sich aus christlicher Perspektive mit dem sogenannten Neuheidentum auseinander. Per aspera ad astra: Darum das Bedauerliche an diesem Buch zuerst. Aus christlicher Sicht ist der Neo-Paganismus (der in seinen modischsten Erscheinungsformen sich gern schwarzgewandet präsentiert) ein Obskurantentum, eine düster-magische Geschichte, auch wenn »Lichtgottheiten« dort als Rollenträger (unter anderen) fungieren. Nun kommt das Buch selbst reichlich verschleiert daher:

Der verrätselte Titel an sich (in Lila) verrät wenig, er verschwindet auch optisch im Braun des Untergrunds. Wir finden auch keinen Hinweis zum Autoren – ist er Sozialwissenschaftler, Theologe oder »interessierter Zeitgenosse«? Wir erfahren es nicht; und wenn eine Fußnote besonders interessant erscheint, finden wir über Strecken »Ebenda« und müssen blättern. Da ein Literaturverzeichnis fehlt, bleibt uns, gewissermaßen abgedunkelt zu lesen. Das macht dann nicht viel, wenn man erkennt: Es ist keine Publikation für eine breite Leserschaft, sondern für eine enger gefaßte »Szene«. Wir dürfen diese als jungkonservatives Milieu begreifen. In diesem Rahmen hat Bickenbachs Buch seine Meriten.

Bickenbach wendet sich implizit an ein »anti-modernes« Publikum, an Leser, die mit dem Fortschrittsglauben hadern, die sich auf einem Weg jenseits materialistischer Vorstellungen sehen, die ein Heil jenseits der sichtbaren Welt erahnen. »Anlaß dieses Buches waren Begegnungen und Gespräche mit Menschen, die kein lebendiges Christentum erfuhren und die Kirchengeschichte nur aus zeitgenössischen Darstellungen kennen«, schreibt Bickenbach. Nach seiner Einschätzung orientierten sich »auf der politisch rechten Seite« die meisten Anhänger an einem »Germanentum«, wobei sich esoterische und radikal-biologische Standpunkte unterscheiden ließen. In drei untergliederten Großkapiteln (»Geschichte und Selbstverständnis der Neuheiden«, »Die Deutung von Brauchtum und Überlieferung« und »Postmoderne Religiosität«) sortiert der Autor sein Arsenal gegen jene, die gegen die »orientalische Wüstenreligion«, die »seelische Verknechtung« und den »Identitätsraub« und den vorgeblichen »Völkermord« durch das Christentum polemisieren.

Erst die zeitgenössische verunklarende Verkündigungspraxis, die statt der eigentlichen Offenbarung die angeblichen Ansprüche »moderner Scheinwerte« in den Vordergrund gestellt habe, »konnte die Vorstellung nähren, das Christentum sei eine Religion der Schwachen, Zukurzgekommenen und Lebensuntüchtigen.« Bickenbach entlarvt – und er tut dies auch mit Hilfe »neo-paganer« Nenngrößen wie Julius Evola – das »lyrisch-subjektive Pathos«, das von Naturerscheinungen hervorgerufen werden kann; er hat auch seinen Nietzsche gründlich gelesen, wie er überhaupt neben gebotener Polarisierung eine Synthese anstrebt.

Das Christentum, das er meint, ist streitbar, tüchtig, kulturstiftend und heroisch. Nach Bickenbach verdankt die neuheidnische Kritik am Christentum dem liberalen Protestantismus ihre Beweggründe. Sie argumentiert selbst auf dem Boden einer relativistischen, individualistischen und eigentlich antitraditionellen Religionserfindung – es gibt keine »heidnische Überlieferung«. Der Autor zitiert aus umgedichtetem Liedgut: »O du fröhliche, o du ahnende / lichtverkündende Wintersonnwendzeit«, er verweist auf Parallelen linker und rechter Religionskritik. Die Neuheiden bekämpfen zugleich einen Pappkameraden, nämlich ein von langer Hand umgewertetes, verbogenes, »geupdatetes« Christentum.

Bickenbach begleitet beispielhaft den Glaubensweg des irrlichternden Gorch Fock, der als Sohn frommer Eltern erst Gott gegen Nietzsche verteidigte, dann zum »Germanengläubigen« wurde (»Mein Zion ist Walhall!«) und im Verlauf des Jahres 1915 bei seinen Einsätzen in Rußland, Serbien und Verdun Monate vor seinem Tod ringend zum Glauben seiner Väter zurückfand: »Den größten Segen des Krieges haben die erfahren, die sich von ihm zu Gott führen ließen.«

Peter Bickenbach: Odin, Buddha, Pan & Darwin, Neustadt a.d. Orla: Arnshaugk 2013. 274 S., 18 € – hier bestellen

Les courants de la Tradition païenne romaine en Italie

Renato del Ponte:

Ex : http://www.archiveseroe.eu/romanitas-a114141076

Les courants de la Tradition païenne romaine en Italie

 

Tout au long du XXe siècle, et, avant l’actuelle renaissance, avec le renouveau des premiers temps du Fascisme jusqu’aux Accords du Latran (11 février 1929), l’Italie a vu se manifester ce que le professeur Piero Di Vona a appelé, pour clarifier les choses, « le Traditionalisme romain ». Cet ensemble jusqu’il y a peu hétérogène, regroupant diverses personnalités, revues et tendances, n’est nullement monolithique ; il constitue plutôt une mouvance qui réussit à assumer différentes facettes d’un héritage ancien.

 

Cette mouvance, malgré son hétérogénéité sur les plans méthodologique et idéologique, se caractérise par la volonté de réactualiser le modèle spirituel, religieux et rituel du Paganisme romain, dont nous avons proposé ailleurs une définition plus précise : « la Voie romaine vers les Dieux ». Le courant traditionaliste considère cette voie comme une alternative permettant à l’État italien de se soustraire aux ingérences, aux abus politiques et moraux de l’Église catholique.

 

Nous ne parlerons pas ici de la préhistoire de ces courants pas plus que nous n’aborderons la question de leur éventuelle transmission directe depuis les lois liberticides des empereurs chrétiens Gratien et Théodose, entre 382 et 394, qui interrompirent jusqu’à nos jours la Pax Deorum. Nous renvoyons pour cela le lecteur à notre étude intitulée Le Mouvement traditionaliste romain au XXe siècle (1). Ce concept de Pax Deorum est essentiel, pourvu qu’il s’agisse du “pacte” ou du “contrat” établi aux origines entre les Dieux primordiaux (et tout particulièrement Jupiter Optimus Maximus, le Père du Ciel, ainsi que Janus, Mars et Vesta) et le peuple de Rome. Cette Pax, voulue par l’Augure-Roi Romulus et développée par Numa Pompilius, a fondé l’union indissoluble de la religion et de l’État romain, depuis le temps des Rois jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire.

 

Actuellement, les courants de la Tradition païenne romaine peuvent, en privé, pratiquer le Cultus Deorum, mais point le culte public, qui présupposerait la restauration de la Pax Deorum, coïncidant par ailleurs avec la restauration de l’État romain traditionnel. Ceci explique qu’une série de représentants ont tenté, tout au long de ce siècle, d’exercer une influence sur les plus hautes autorités de l’État italien, mais avec des résultats insuffisants.

 

Comme prédécesseur célèbre du courant traditionaliste romain, et d’un type culturel et idéaliste, on peut citer un courant de pensée de la fin de l’époque napoléonienne représenté par Vincenzo Cuoco, auteur d’un roman archéologique, Platon en Italie, et par Ugo Foscolo. Refus tant du cosmopolitisme des Lumières que des idées réactionnaires de la sainte Alliance, revendication d’une tradition spirituelle et civique autochtone remontant à l’Italie pré-romaine et se prolongeant jusqu’à la Renaissance (cf. le De antiquissima Italorum Sapientia de Gian Battista Vico) caractérisent ce courant qui réapparaît tout au long du Risorgimento (les pages de Gabriele Rossetti dans Le Mystère de l’amour platonique au Moyen Âge [1840] en constituent un autre sommet).

 

Au XXe siècle, certaines figures les plus éminentes de ce courant s’inspirent largement des tendances anticléricales et maçonniques du Risorgimento, tandis que d’autres s’en éloignent pour suivre des voies propres et originales. Cette diversification s’est conservée jusqu’à nos jours.

 

La référence au Risorgimento n’est pas fortuite parce que, selon les actuels représentants du courant, l’unité italienne est la condition indispensable pour la restauration de la Pax Deorum. Ceci pour « des raisons métahistoriques et métapolitiques, à savoir sacrées, fondée ab origine sur le rapport entre le sol et les épiphanies divines relatives aux religions des anciens habitants de l’Italie, c’est-à-dire sur le lus sacrum de Rome ». (2) Par-delà l’influence sur des poètes comme Giovanni Pascoli, la Voie romaine vers les Dieux aurait été préservée dans quelques familles nobles du Latium, les Colonna et les Caetani. Ce serait même un Caetani, selon une thèse controversée, «Ekatlos», qui aurait célébré un rite durant la Première Guerre mondiale, « mois après mois, nuit après nuit, sans arrêt ». Le rituel appelait les forces de la Guerre et de la Victoire, antiques et augustes figures de la race romaine, par le truchement d’un sceptre royal découvert dans une tombe de la Via Appia Antica…

 

Un archéologue célèbre tel que Giacomo Boni, qui découvrit en 1899 le Lapis niger sur le Forum romain et qui, en 1923, conçut le faisceau du licteur pour Mussolini, fut loin d’être insensible à la Voie romaine. Ainsi que le Ministre de l’Instruction publique de la fin du XIXe siècle, Guido Baccelli, qui disait : « l’idéal de notre siècle est le citoyen soldat, notre modèle, la Rome ancienne ». C’est toutefois avec Arturo Reghini (1878-1946) que la Voie romaine tend à devenir plus explicite, même s’il appartient au courant “orphico-pythagoricien”, marginal par rapport à la Tradition romaine proprement dite. Ce fut précisément autour des revues de Reghini, Atanor (1924), puis Ignis (1925), et enfin, après les ordonnances de Bodrero et les lois sur les sociétés secrètes, Ur (1927-1928) officiellement dirigée par Julius Evola, que se rassembleront tous ceux qui cherchaient à donner au régime un caractère néo-païen et romain. Mussolini éprouva quelque intérêt pour ce courant puisqu’il reçut, le 23 mai 1923, des représentants de la Voie romaine qui lui offrirent une hache étrusque archaïque liée comme un faisceau selon les prescriptions rituelles. Cet acte propitiatoire d’inspiration sacrée avait pour objectif manifeste de favoriser une restauration païenne, un retour à la Pax Deorum.

 

De même, le célèbre pamphlet de Julius Evola, Impérialisme païen (3), fut le dernier appel, tragique et sans équivoque, des représentants du courant romain avant le Concordat (1929), dans l’espoir que le Fascisme « assume la Romanité de façon intégrale en imprégnant toute la conscience nationale ». Il s’agissait pour la classe politique de « réaliser le point de vue sacré, spirituel, initiatique de la Tradition ». Il semble que cette prise de position critique (et farouchement antichrétienne, NDT) n’ait pas trop déplu à Mussolini, qui confia, en privé, à Yvonne de Begnac (Taccuini Mussoliniani, a cura di F. Perfetti, Bologna 1990, p. 647) : « Contrairement à ce que l’on pense généralement, je ne fus pas du tout fâché de la prise de position du Dr. Julius Evola quelques mois avant la Conciliation à l’encontre d’une paix, quelle qu’elle soit, entre le Saint-Siège et l’Italie ».

 

En effet, le 11 février 1929, le gouvernement fasciste signa au nom du Roi d’Italie le Concordat avec l’Église catholique. C’est alors que prit naissance ce monstrum juridique que constitue la Cité du Vatican. C’était la fin de tous les espoirs d’action au sein du régime pour Evola, Reghini et les autres représentants influents de la Voie païenne restés dans l’ombre. Restait le programme minimal indiqué par Evola dans Impérialisme païen : « promouvoir les études de critique historique, non point partisane, mais froide, chirurgicale, sur l’essence du Christianisme (…), promouvoir les études, la recherche et vulgariser l’aspect spirituel du Paganisme, sur la vraie vision du monde ». Conformément à ce programme minimal, Evola cherchera plus tard à publier les travaux de quelques-uns de ses collaborateurs, dans Diorama Filosofico, de manière irrégulière entre 1934 et 1943 dans la page culturelle du quotidien de Crémone, Il Regime Fascista de Roberto Farinacci.

 

Mythes et symboles de la tradition romaine seront étudiés sur le plan spirituel par Evola en personne, Giovanni Costa (auteur en 1923 d’une Apologie du Paganisme), Massimo Scaligero, du jeune Angelo Brelich (qui occupera après la guerre la chaire d’Histoire des Religions du Monde classique à l’Université de Rome), Guido De Giorgio, ainsi que par des collaborateurs étrangers comme Franz Altheim et Edmund Dodsworth. Mais ici, le discours est devenu purement culturel, ou, tout au plus, anthropologique : l’aspect religieux et spirituel manque et l’intérêt pour le rituel est inexistant.

 

Guido de Giorgio (1890-1957) avait tenté une difficile conciliation entre Voie romaine et Christianisme autour d’une notion “métaphysique” de Rome. On ne peut l’insérer dans le courant dont il est ici question. Mais il avait bien vu, dans sa Tradition romaine (conçue entre 1939 et 1942, mais publiée après sa mort, en 1973), que la guerre serait fatale pour l’esprit et le nom de Rome. En effet, la Voie romaine est restée longtemps occultée, jusqu’à la fin des années 60. Elle semble renaître, mais aux marges de certains courants de la droite radicale, d’abord au sein du Centre des Études d’Ordine Nuovo, puis, s’étant détachée de cette organisation, au sein du Groupe des Dioscures (1970), dont le siège principal était à Rome, mais avec des sections à Naples et Messine. On ignore à quel point ce groupe avait repris les pratiques opératives, magiques, déjà en usage dans le groupe “Ur” (1927-1929). Evola, qui disparut en 1974, était au courant de son activité. Le groupe publia quatre fascicules doctrinaux entre 1969 et 1973 : les Brochures des Dioscures.

 

L’une d’elles, L’assaut de la vraie culture, attribuée à un célèbre ésotériste, a été traduite en français par Philippe Baillet et publiée dans la revue Totalité en 1979 sous le sous-titre « Présent et avenir du traditionalisme intégral ». L’intérêt de ce groupe, dissout vers 1975, a été ce rattachement conscient aux précédentes expériences sapientielles. Il a indiqué à divers membres de ce que l’on appelait alors “droite radicale” (mais ce terme a aujourd’hui perdu une grande partie de son sens) des pistes possibles pour une Tradition païenne romaine en Italie.

 

Si le Groupe des Dioscures a disparu, en raison de la voie opérative choisie et surtout à cause du manque de qualifications de nombre de ses membres, quelques cénacles périphériques ont poursuivi leurs activités, de façon différente et novatrice. Ainsi faut-il citer le groupe de Messine, qui date de la fin des années 70 et, dans la même ville, le groupe “Arx”, par la suite éditeur de la revue trimestrielle La Cittadella (à partir de mars 1984) et des cahiers du même nom (4).

 

Au début des années 80, le courant romain renaît de manière consciente et explicite. La première manifestation publique a lieu en un endroit et à un moment très significatifs. En 1981, à Cortona, d’où, selon la tradition mythique, Dardanus, souche de la dynastie troyenne serait parti vers l’Asie Mineure, et le premier mars, jour qui marque le début de l’année sacrée romaine, eut liai un important congrès consacré à la Tradition italique et romaine. Malgré les prises de position diverses, cette rencontre eut le mérite de proposer l’Aurea Catena Saturni de la Tradition autochtone italique (5).

 

Un deuxième congrès a eu lieu peu après à Messine, en décembre 1981, sur le thème « Le Sacré chez Virgile » (textes publiés dans la revue Arthos de R. Del Ponte, NDT). À partir de ce moment, avec la publication de livres et de collections comprenant auteurs classiques et modernes ainsi que des ouvrages d’érudition, une nouvelle élaboration doctrinale et une redéfinition des concepts fondamentaux témoignent d’un approfondissement intérieur. De prudentes activités “extérieures” permettent au mouvement de s’étendre à travers toute l’Italie.

 

Ainsi, entre 1985 et 1988, trois rencontres ont pu être organisées : les Conventum Italicum I, II et III, qui ont rassemblé les trois principales branches de la Voie romaine. Les débats ont surtout porté sur les rituels, les concepts de monothéisme et de polythéisme, la préférence à apporter à la plus ancienne Tradition (Prisa Traditio) ou à la Tradition de la Rome tardive, mystérique et néoplatonicienne.

 

Enfin, une ligne d’action commune a été décidée afin de diffuser les idées du Mouvement Traditionaliste Romain (MTR), qui se définit lui-même non comme un mouvement politique, mais « comme l’expression sur le plan culturel de la Nation, Centre spirituel témoignant, en cette fin de deuxième millénaire de l’ère vulgaire, de la continuité, et de la présence vivante de l’antique Tradition romaine et italique ».

 

À la fin de 1988, une petite brochure anonyme a été publiée par le MTR : Sur le problème de la Tradition romaine de notre temps (6). Sous la forme d’un entretien, il est répondu aux principales questions et objections doctrinales et culturelles adressées au MTR. Diverses orientations sont fournies à qui veut participer à la vie du milieu traditionaliste romain en voie de constitution. Le mieux est d’en donner le sommaire :

• 1) Les composantes du MTR
• 2) Les équivoques du néo-paganisme
• 3) Esprit romain et monde chrétien
• 4) Sur la “légitimité” de la Tradition romaine
• 5) La Pietas romaine actuelle
• 6) Le rôle de la Femme
• 7) Les nouvelles communautés de destin (7)
• 8) Objectifs immédiats
• 9) Sur la tolérance religieuse
• 10) La Tradition romaine et la politique.

Enfin, lors du IVe et dernier Conventum Italicum, tenu au solstice d’été 1992 à Forli au siège de l’association Romania Quirites (puissante organisation fédérée au MTR, structurée de manière communautaire avec des zones agricoles et des activités artisanales en Romagne et qui publie la revue Saturnia Régna), il a été décidé que, à côté du MTR (fédération d’associations de fait et de droit), naîtrait la Curia Romana Patrum. Celle-ci a pour rôle de veiller au Mos et à la Pietas : le rite et le culte aujourd’hui privés, en quelque sorte. Il y a à présent cinq Gentes, groupant chacune plusieurs Familiae : deux en Sicile (Aurélia et Castoria), une dans le centre (Iulia Primigenia), et deux au nord (Pico-Martia et Apollinaris). En 1992, un kalendarium précis a été établi pour préciser les dates essentielles des célébrations cultuelles de la communauté.

 

Sur ces bases, deux mariages ont pu être célébré selon l’antique rite traditionnel de la Confarreatio (communion de l’épeautre). Cette cérémonie est absolument facultative et n’est nullement exigée des membres des Gentes ; elle a été célébrée “rite” par le Magister Gentium, élu ou confirmé chaque année par la Curia Patrum sur la base de son experientia religieuse.

 

Pour terminer, signalons la récente parution en 1993 d’un intéressant Manifeste en 15 points (déjà cité) indiquant clairement la volonté du MTR de prendre des positions publiques. À ce propos, la revue Politica Romana écrit : « Cette volonté d’avoir une incidence dans le domaine public, avec une attention particulière pour le thème de la Patrie, de la Nation, de l’État et de la Religion démontre un réveil de l’intérêt pour le domaine qui fut l’objet principal des soins du Koku-rei, le cérémonial nippon qui du reste n’existe plus aujourd’hui comme fonction institutionnelle de l’État » (8). Au point 5 du Manifeste (article Religion), on peut lire : « Ne se considérant lui-même que comme une expression d’une réalité (…) il (le MTR) fait sienne l’idée bien romaine de la pluralité des formes du sacré ». Et « Considérant comme “État traditionnel minimal” un état similaire au Japon shintoïste, mais où le Shintoïsme serait remplacé par un culte public des Dieux de Rome, le MTR a jusqu’à présent assuré que, dans l’éventualité de l’avènement d’un État de ce genre, le pluralisme religieux serait maintenu ». Toutefois, « il reste souhaitable à nos yeux que la Cité du Vatican, siège de l’État du Pape, soit transférée hors d’Italie. De nombreux Catholiques du monde entier désirent d’ailleurs ce transfert ».

 

On le voit, l’héritage de Julius Evola et de son livre Impérialisme païen est demeuré très vivace.

 

► Renato Del Ponte, Antaïos n°10, 1996.

 

Texte remanié d’une conférence prononcée à Paris le 3 février 1996 au colloque sur le Paganisme contemporain organisé à Paris par les éditions L’Originel.

 

◊ Notes :

 

(1) R. Del Ponte, Il Movimento tradizionalista romano nel Novecento, SeaR, Scandiamo 1987. Du même éditeur, on lira aussi : Sul problema di una Tradizione romana nel tempo attuale, Scandiano 1988.
(2) Movimento Tradizionalista Romano, Manifesto : Orientamenti per i tempi a venire, Messina, 1993, p.II-lII.
(3) J. Evola, Impérialisme païen, Pardès, 1993.
(4) La Cittadella (Arx), Messina.
(5) Y participaient les continuateurs de l’œuvre de Reghini, éditeurs de la revue Il Ghibellino (1979-1983) et fondateurs en Calabre de l’Association pythagoricienne, avec la revue Hygieia (cinq fascicules entre 1984 et 1985). À la mort de l’un des principaux organisateurs, Salvatore Recupero, certains animateurs ont fondé Ignis (six numéros entre 1990 et 1992). Actuellement, les groupes pythagoriciens ne prennent qu’une part marginale aux initiatives du Mouvement Traditionaliste Romain. Il faut aussi citer les cahiers Alètheia publiés à Marsala.
(6) Cf. supra.
(7) Il est précisé à cet égard que ces communautés devaient reprendre le nom ancien des Gentes, sans reposer sur des bases nobiliaires et parentales, mais bien sur une commune vision du monde et sur le culte commun rendu aux mêmes figures divines.
(8) P Fenili, « Religion d’État et religion de salut en Italie et au Japon », in : Politica Romana, I, 1994, p.26. Cette publication n'adhère pas formellement au MTR et peut être considéré comme l’expression d’un courant “kremmerzien”. Au contraire, Mos Maiorum (Rome, depuis 1994) semble s’inspirer de certaines études du Groupe des Dioscures, les aspects rituels en moins.

 

***

Evoliana

 

Renato Del Ponte, que le poète Pierre Pascal appelait le « cœur des cœurs », fut in illo tempore le collaborateur et l’ami de Julius Evola. C’est lui qui, le 26 août 1974, déposa son urne cinéraire dans une crevasse en haute montagne (Lyskamm oriental). Funérailles à l’image du personnage énigmatique que fut le baron Julius Evola. On pense ici à d’autres funérailles, tout aussi clandestines : celles de Montherlant, dont les cendres furent répandues sur le Forum romain et dans le Tibre par Gabriel Matzneff. Renato Del Ponte s’est imposé comme l’un des meilleurs connaisseurs de l’œuvre d’Evola, dont il a édité plus d’un titre. Responsable du Centra Studi Evoliani, il a fondé la revue Arthos (1972-1990), organe du traditionalisme païen romain. La section belge du CSE était alors dirigée par le surréaliste Marc. Eemans. M. Del Ponte compte relancer la revue Arthos, ce qui serait hautement souhaitable, vu l’excellente tenue de cette publication. Il est aussi directeur de multiples collections et traducteur, on lui doit une traduction commentée de la relation sur l’Autel de la Victoire de Symmaque, l’âme de la résistance païenne au sein de la noblesse romaine (ed. Basilisco, Genova). Chez le même éditeur, on trouve des textes de l’empereur Julien, des livres sur Mithra, Pythagore, etc. Cet infatigable chercheur vient de publier, aux éditions SeaR, Evola e il magico Gruppo di Ur (1994), luxueux ouvrage (portant un Mithra tauroctone en couverture) sur l’aventure magique et opérative du jeune Evola (1927-1929). Le livre présente des documents inédits sur Ur, des témoignages et des extraits de la correspondance de Guénon.

 

Toujours sur Evola, SeaR publie, du philosophe Sandro Consolato, Julius Evola e il Buddhismo (1995), un beau livre — il faut souligner le goût parfait de cet éditeur — sur les rapports complexes du penseur traditionaliste avec le Bouddhisme et la doctrine de l’Éveil. On y lira d’intéressantes réflexions solidement argumentées (impressionnant appareil de notes) sur le thème de l’ascèse chez Evola et Guénon, l’initiation, le caractère indo-aryen (Evola a développé ailleurs le concept fondamental de « race de l’esprit » en réaction contre certain biologisme réducteur) de cette doctrine. Enfin, Renato Del Ponte étudie l’important travail effectué par Evola dans les pages du Diorama filosofico (1934-1943) dans un recueil, également somptueux, intitulé Delle rovine ed oltre : Saggi su J. Evola (Pellicani, Roma, 1995). Ce recueil comprend des études sur Evola et la Maçonnerie, Evola et Eliade, ses rapports avec l’avant-garde, le dadaïsme, etc. R. Del Ponte y analyse finement l’aventure intellectuelle du Diorama où le « filosofo proibito » accueillit la fine fleur de la Révolution conservatrice européenne, du Prince de Rohan à Brelich. Il y relate aussi le succès du Corpus Evolianum en Pologne, Hongrie, Roumanie et Russie… D’autres spécialistes étudient qui le dadaïsme du jeune Evola et son «futurisme», qui son «antifascisme antidémocratique» (M. Rossi) sous l’influence de Stirner et de Nietzsche. L’importance du penseur, que Marguerite Yourcenar considérait comme essentiel, est soulignée ainsi que le malentendu né d’approches fragmentaires. Un long poème aux réminiscences jüngeriennes et nietzschéennes achève de conquérir le lecteur attentif et fait de ce livre une référence aussi incontournable que la somme de Christophe Boutin (Politique et Tradition, Kimé, 1992).

(Christopher Gérard)

 

 

La renaissance orientale

LA RENAISSANCE ORIENTALE

 

Son apport à la philosophie et la spiritualité occidentale

Rémy Valat
Ex: http://metamag.fr

Les éditions Payot viennent de rééditer La Renaissance Orientale de Raymond Schwab, le livre de référence sur les débuts et l’impact des études indiennes et orientales sur les sociétés européennes aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles. Raymond  Schawb (1884-1956) était un authentique humaniste aux multiples facettes : il était traducteur (il pratiquait l'hébreu, le hongrois et l'anglais), romancier et poète. L’Orientalisme a été précédé par un mouvement précurseur, dit pré-indianiste, mouvement animé par des missionnaires ou des fonctionnaires portugais, italiens ou français (en particulier, Anquetil-Duperron, 1731-1805) puis par le pouvoir colonial britannique établi dans la péninsule indienne. Pour ce dernier, l’intérêt linguistique était considéré comme une arme politique pour asseoir sa domination sur le pays.

La société de Calcutta, créée par William Jones en 1784 rassemblait des hauts-fonctionnaires du pouvoir colonial, souvent des juristes, épris de culture indigènes. On leur doit les premières traductions des textes sacrés indiens, en particulier la Bhagavad-Gîtâ par Charles Wilkins (1784), mais aussi les premières parutions scientifiques sur la culture indienne et les premiers pas de l’archéologie, de la numismatique et de l’épigraphie dans le sous-continent. Guidés par des intérêts politiques, l’Angleterre se désintéresse rapidement des études orientales, l’Orientalisme sera essentiellement un mouvement français et allemand (en particulier le mouvement indo-germanique). 

En France, le Directoire fonde l’École des Langues Orientales Vivantes (actuel Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales – INALCO) en 1795 ; cette création précéde de peu l’expédition de Bonaparte en Égypte qui donnera une impulsion significative aux études orientales et en particulier l’égyptologie. L’Orientalisme est en quelque sorte un avatar des guerres napoléoniennes puisque Alexandre Hamilton (1762-1824), officier de la Royal Navy et ancien membre de la Société Asiatique de Calcutta, s’est trouvé assigné à résidence à Paris au moment de la rupture de la paix d’Amiens. Cet officier, qui étudiait des textes indiens conservés au département des manuscrits bénéficia de la bienveillance et de la solidarité scientifique d’érudits de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Reconnaissant, Hamilton leur enseigna la langue sanskrite.

Parmi ces passionnés et privilégiés se trouvait le philosophe et écrivain allemand Friedrisch Schlegel, qui sera l’un des animateurs du « Cercle d'Iéna » et du romantisme allemand. La première chaire de sanskrit sera créée quelques années plus tard au Collège de France en 1814 : Eugène Burnouf, qui a fondé la Société asiatique en 1822, y professera à partir de 1832. Eugène Burnouf a contribué au développement des études bouddhiques en Occident, il a notamment traduit l’un des plus beau texte du bouddhisme : le Sutra du Lotus (1852). Des bancs des universités, l’orientalisme se répand dans les mouvements littéraires et philosophiques, les plus grands auteurs français y ont été sensibles (Alphonse de Lamartine, Victor Hugo, Honoré de Balzac, Edmond Michelet, Saint-Simon, Gérard de Nerval, Gustave Flaubert, les Parnassiens, les symbolistes....).

La Renaissance Orientale : un ouvrage capital pour saisir les représentations et les interprétations des cultures asiatiques par les Européens et leur apport à la philosophie et la spiritualité occidentale.
La Renaissance Orientale , de Raymond Schwab, Editions Payot ( réedition) , 688 pages, 32€.

René Guénon, Roma, Convegno

Virgilio ed Enea: l’etica dell’origine che è destino

Virgilio ed Enea: l’etica dell’origine che è destino

 

Valerio Benedetti

 

Ex: http://www.ilprimatonazionale.it

 

Roma, 15 ott – Il 15 ottobre del 70 a.C., esattamente 2083 anni fa, nasceva ad Andes, presso Mantova, Publio Virgilio Marone, più noto semplicemente come Virgilio. Per riassumere al meglio la sua attività letteraria, così recita l’epitaffio inciso sul suo sepolcro napoletano che, secondo alcune testimonianze, fu lo stesso grande poeta a dettare: «cantai pascoli, campi ed eroi». Il riferimento è alle sue opere più famose, cioè le Bucoliche, le Georgiche e l’Eneide. A ben rifletterci, Virgilio ci sta in realtà dicendo che, con i suoi versi, altro non ha cantato se non la civiltà romana nel suo complesso. L’uomo romano infatti, secondo la tradizione, è pastore, agricoltore e guerriero. È milizia e lavoro. È l’aratro che traccia il solco, ma è la spada che lo difende.

Roma, Italia, Impero

Il momento storico in cui Virgilio vive ed opera è poi molto particolare. Nel cenacolo culturale del ricco e potente Mecenate, stretto consigliere dell’imperatore e generoso patrono di letterati per antonomasia, Virgilio si imbeve e contribuisce ad alimentare il grande entusiasmo per il ritorno a una nuova età dell’oro, inaugurata dalla celebrata figura di Augusto, il quale aveva posto fine alle terribili guerre civili. E il cosiddetto saeculum augustum coincide altresì con un fatto storico di portata epocale: l’identificazione giuridica e morale di Roma con l’Italia. A seguito della «guerra sociale» (91-88 a.C.) e del conferimento da parte di Cesare della cittadinanza anche agli abitanti della Gallia transpadana (49 a.C.), i popoli italici sono a tutti gli effetti cittadini romani. Si trattò in buona parte di un riconoscimento doveroso: fu infatti l’esercito romano-italico a conquistare nell’arco di due secoli l’impero mediterraneo di Roma. Cittadini romani e alleati italici (socii) avevano combattuto, erano morti e avevano trionfato insieme, ponendo le basi del dominio incontrastato dell’Urbe nel mondo allora conosciuto.

Di qui la formazione di una base sociale che Cesare e Ottaviano (poi Augusto) seppero mobilitare per la propria causa, offrendo alle aristocrazie municipali e ai soldati italici la possibilità di partecipare da protagonisti alla gestione del potere. Non è quindi un caso se i letterati cosiddetti «augustei» che cantarono la gloria di Roma siano tutti Italici che col destino dell’Urbe oramai si identificavano: dall’etrusco Mecenate al Virgilio mantovano, dal lucano Orazio al Tito Livio patavino (cioè padovano). L’Italia romana è dunque una realtà morale, prima ancora che territoriale e giuridica, che si è forgiata nel sacro fuoco di amore e guerra.

La potenza dell’epica che si fa mito

Se non si coglie questo dato, non è possibile comprendere a fondo la genesi e il significato dell’Eneide, l’indiscusso capolavoro virgiliano a cui il vate della romanità lavorò per ben 10 anni. La prospettiva filologica, storiografica, artistica, antropologica, archeologica, in effetti, è legittima e utile, ma al tempo stesso limitante. Si può certamente discutere del decisivo influsso omerico, dei topoi del genere epico, del carattere ideologico e filo-augusteo dell’opera. Così come si possono distinguere nell’Eneide le stratificazioni e le sovrapposizioni di diversi materiali mitologici: l’arrivo dei conquistatori indoeuropei nella penisola italica oppure la fusione della leggenda greca sulle origini di Roma (approdo di Enea nel Lazio) con quella indigena (fondazione romulea dell’Urbe). Si può addirittura vedere nello scontro tra Troiani e popoli autoctoni una metafora letteraria della guerra sociale o delle recenti e sanguinose guerre civili. Tutto ciò – si diceva – è legittimo e anzi utilissimo. Così facendo, tuttavia, resterebbe inaccessibile il cuore pulsante dell’operazione virgiliana.

Proprio perché, al di là di tutte le letture e le interpretazioni, bisogna ricordarsi che, assemblando materiali disparatissimi, Virgilio ha coscientemente voluto non replicare, ma fondare un mito. Un mito che non è affatto mera «favola» – come potrebbe suggerire un approccio aridamente e stancamente storicistico – ma piuttosto immagine originale (e originaria) di sé stessi. L’Eneide, infatti, è l’immagine, sublimata in esametri e canto, che il popolo romano aveva delle proprie origini e quindi del proprio avvenire. E Virgilio, con la sua impresa metapolitica e mitopoietica, ne è stato il sommo vate, ossia colui che, con impareggiabile maestria, ha saputo dar voce e immortalità all’orgoglio della Roma imperiale.

Origine, avvenire, rivoluzione

Un dato, in particolare, va evidenziato. L’epica greca arcaica aveva presto sviluppato un tipico genere letterario, quello dei nóstoi, che narrava dei «ritorni» degli eroi achei nelle loro patrie d’origine al termine della guerra di Troia. Il nóstos più famoso resta, ovviamente, l’Odissea, in cui Odìsseo/Ulisse, dopo un lungo e tribolato peregrinare, approda finalmente a Itaca, suo regno avito e dominio primigenio. Qui il re dovrà sfidare e sconfiggere i «proci», cioè i pretendenti alla mano della regina Penelope e, di conseguenza, al trono. Grazie alla vittoria Ulisse ristabilisce la sua sovranità regale, ripristina la condizione iniziale e legittima. Il suo ritorno è, a tutti gli effetti, restaurazione. Per Enea e i Teucri, invece, la situazione è ben diversa. L’origine, infatti, non sta dietro, ma innanzi a loro. Dalle fiamme distruttrici e dalle ceneri di Troia, dove tutto è morte che sembra annunciare la fine della gloriosa stirpe di Dardano, si dischiude all’improvviso la possibilità di un nuovo inizio, di una nuova origine. Un’origine che è destino, che è fondazione, che è rivoluzione.

In questo vuoto abissale di riferimenti, tutte le coordinate vengono meno. Tutto diviene incerto e indefinito, gli unici indizi si celano dietro agli enigmatici responsi dell’Apollo di Delo. Le sole certezze di Enea sono quindi il padre Anchise e il figlioletto Iulo/Ascanio, che egli è riuscito disperatamente a sottrarre alla morte in quella terribile notte che ha cambiato tutto. Anchise infatti, nell’olocausto di Troia, ha messo in salvo le sacre immagini dei Penati, ossia gli dèi protettori della patria annientata, e rappresenta il legame non del tutto reciso con la tradizione dei padri, i quali non a caso sveleranno in sogno ad Enea la giusta destinazione del suo viaggio, ossia l’Italia, antica patria di Dardano, «gran madre di messi, terra sacra a Saturno, gran genitrice d’eroi» (Georgiche, II 173-174). Il piccolo Iulo, invece, è la fondamentale garanzia della continuazione della stirpe, quella «progenie di eletta virtù che tutto intero dovrà con le armi dominare l’universo» (Eneide, VII 257-258). Memoria delle origini e volontà d’avvenire, dunque, sono le uniche cose che Enea ha voluto portare con sé prima di salpare verso il regno dell’ignoto. Eppure il sommo Giove – pregato da Venere, madre divina dell’eroe, e nonostante l’«ira tenace della crudele Giunone» – va oramai preparando il destino di Enea e della futura grandezza di Roma.

Il destino come decisione

Sul concetto-chiave di «fato» va fatta chiarezza. La critica moderna ha infatti spesso sopravvalutato eccessivamente il suo carattere vincolante, dipingendo talvolta Enea come un mero strumento passivo di una volontà che lo trascende e tirannicamente lo condiziona. Se è vero che il fato si traduce spesso in iussa, ovverosia in comandamenti e mandati degli dèi (i quali, non va dimenticato, allo stesso fato sono soggetti), esso tuttavia non rappresenta affatto una sorte inevitabile. L’eroe, al contrario, può sempre decidere di accettare o rifiutare i piani che Giove ha concepito. Enea, infatti, avrebbe ben potuto rimanere in Africa con Didone, la regina dei Cartaginesi che, con le nozze, gli aveva offerto regno e potenza. Esercitando la sua libertà storica, Enea avrebbe potuto cioè rinunciare al suo mandatum, alla sua missione, alla sua natura eroica. Eppure, esortato da Mercurio, Enea sceglie infine di tener fede all’originaria promessa d’avvenire, ossia alla speranza dell’erede Iulo «a cui spettano il regno d’Italia e la terra romana» (IV 275-276).

 

In altre parole, l’eroe rimane fedele al suo destino di lotta e vittoria. Esattamente in questo senso Enea è pius. Perché ha consapevolmente deciso di farsi carico dei fata, dei disegni degli dèi che gli promettono potenza e gloria imperitura. Questo fato, quindi, altro non è che «sacro vincolo destino», ossia destino liberamente accettato, bramato, voluto: «Ma il mio proprio valore, i santi oracoli degli dèi e gli avi consanguinei […] hanno conformato la mia volontà al destino» (VIII 131-133). In questo sta la natura tragica, e dunque sublime, della decisione di Enea, e cioè nella tensione costante e inesausta di necessità e libertà, di dovere e volontà. Una tensione che la modernità liberal-capitalistica non riesce più a tollerare, disconoscendo l’essenza intrinsecamente tragica dell’uomo e cadendo, pertanto, nella farsa. Enea invece, proprio perché è pius, decide infine, carico di destino, di riappropriarsi di sé stesso e, dunque, del suo glorioso avvenire. Un avvenire che, come gli svelerà la Sibilla cumana, egli dovrà conquistarsi con la sola forza delle armi e del proprio coraggio: «Guerre, orrende guerre e il Tebro distinguo schiumante di molto sangue. […] Tu non cedere ai mali, ma affrontali con audacia ben oltre i limiti della tua sorte» (VI 86-87; 95-96). Come sempre è l’eroe, armato di coraggio e volontà, che deve far forza alla Fortuna per affermare sé stesso, per divenir veramente sé stesso, per forgiare il suo destino.

La «pietà» di Enea

Anche sul concetto centrale di pietas è necessario soffermarsi brevemente. Essa, innanzitutto, non ha nulla a che vedere con la «pietà» cristiana che ha impregnato il nostro linguaggio, ossia la devozione e l’obbedienza del credente a Jahvè e, più comunemente, la misericordia verso il prossimo. La pietas romana, invece, è fedeltà e devozione alla propria cultura e al proprio sistema di valori, in particolare nel rapporto con la famiglia, la patria e gli dèi. I Romani sono il popolo più forte proprio perché hanno istituito la pax deorum, ossia più degli altri hanno tenuto fede alla tradizione dei loro padri e al volere delle loro divinità. Ed Enea, con la sua scelta decisiva di assolvere i fata degli dèi, è indicato da Virgilio come il fondatore di questa alleanza con le forze celesti, le quali, in cambio, donano a Roma potenza e dominio sulle genti.

Non a caso il «pio» Enea è anche e soprattutto il pater Enea, ossia il padre comune del suo popolo e, insieme, la massima autorità religiosa e sacerdotale. Perché la pietas si esprime anche nella corretta celebrazione dei riti, nei doverosi omaggi agli dèi in cui l’eroe vede rispecchiata la sua grandezza. Nessuna misericordia, dunque, ma giustizia inflessibile, volontà di potenza e fedeltà assoluta alla propria stirpe: questa è la pietas di cui i Romani andavano fieri. Per tale motivo alcuni gesti estremi di Enea come le brutali uccisioni di Turno, Lauso e Tarquito, che appaiono «spietati» alla sensibilità dell’Occidente egualitarista, non sono affatto «empi» per la cultura romana, e anzi esprimono la più radicale e coerente aderenza del pius Enea alla tradizione dei suoi padri, alla volontà dei suoi dèi, alla sua etica guerriera.

Il tempo del mito e degli eroi

Nel viaggio periglioso verso l’Italia e nella terribile guerra contro gli Ausoni si compie dunque il destino di Enea, dei Troiani superstiti e di quella Roma ancora da fondare. La successione lineare del tempo si sfalda: passato, presente e futuro si sincronizzano, in particolare nella discesa di Enea nel regno di Dite, dove il defunto padre Anchise gli mostra sia gli eroi della nobile stirpe di Teucro, sia coloro che, non ancora nati, renderanno grande Roma nei secoli avvenire. Anchise consegna quindi ad Enea, sul quale tutto il tempo cosmico converge, la missione universale della Roma che verrà: «Altri plasmeranno con maggiore eleganza spirante bronzo (ben lo concedo), trarranno dal marmo vivi volti, patrocineranno meglio le cause, seguiranno con il compasso i percorsi del cielo e prediranno il corso degli astri. Ma tu ricorda, o Romano, col tuo imperio di dominar le genti. Queste saranno le tue arti: imporre un ordine alla pace, risparmiare i sottomessi e sterminare i superbi» (VI 847-853).

Il fato dell’antica Troia e della nuova Roma è tutto nelle mani di Enea. Anzi, è nel suo scudo, forgiato in oro nella fucina di Vulcano. Su di esso si staglia e rifulge il glorioso futuro della progenie di Venere e Marte, ossia dei figli di amore e guerra: «Qui il Signore del fuoco, non ignaro dei vaticini e non inconsapevole del tempo avvenire, aveva effigiato le gesta italiche e i trionfi dei Romani, qui tutta la discendenza futura, dal sangue di Ascanio, e in ordine le guerre combattute. […] Qui Cesare Augusto che guida in battaglia gli Italici, coi padri e il popolo, i Penati e i grandi dèi. […] Simili spettacoli nello scudo di Vulcano, dono della madre, ammira Enea, e pur ignaro degli eventi si diletta della loro immagine, portando sul braccio la gloria e i destini della stirpe» (VIII 626-629; 678-679; 729-731). Una stirpe di fuoco e dello stesso sangue degli dèi.

Lotta, vittoria, rigenerazione

La guerra che oppone i Troiani e i loro alleati alla coalizione italica, capeggiata da Turno re dei Rutuli, è quanto mai brutale. I due popoli, dalla cui unione sorgerà la progenie della città eterna, devono prima combattersi per poi riconoscersi fratelli. Nessun patetico «contratto sociale», quindi, ma solo il suggello del sangue e delle armi può dar vita alla stirpe che dominerà il mondo. È il sangue dei caduti che feconda la patria e rigenera la storia: «Andate – soggiunse Enea – e onorate con i più alti tributi le anime generose che con il loro sangue ci hanno generato questa patria» (XI 24-25). L’apparente fine è in realtà un nuovo inizio: tutto deve crollare per poi risorgere più forte. I Troiani vittoriosi, infatti, rinunciano al loro nome e si fondono con i popoli d’Ausonia. Il seme della nuova stirpe e della futura gloria dell’Urbe è gettato, come la stessa Giunone dovrà annunciare: «Sia possente la discendenza romana per l’italico valore» (XII 827). Solo dal connubio di Roma e Italia – come si diceva all’inizio – può nascere quel popolo che «per pietas supererà le genti, supererà gli dèi» (XII 839). Solo dalla fusione di Roma e Italia può nascere l’Impero.

Per tale motivo risulta ancor più incredibile che gli italiani abbiano rimosso queste loro nobili origini, che rappresentano invece la più esaltante avventura storica dell’uomo europeo. Oggi, anzi, si guarda con grande sospetto e diffidenza verso ogni mito informatore e ogni volontà storificante del popolo italiano, continuamente umiliato da 70 anni di martellante propaganda antinazionale. Anche nel migliore dei casi, inoltre, si ricorre spesso a complessi fenomeni di transfert: si ricerca il proprio mito fondativo, cioè, nelle oscure caverne dei Nibelunghi, nei pionieri americani che colonizzano il «selvaggio ovest» oppure negli aridi deserti della Palestina. Non sembra esserci posto, quindi, per Enea e le meravigliose terre d’Italia, benedette da Saturno e baciate dal sole, le quali rendono tanto familiare lo sfondo quanto mai suggestivo della narrazione dell’Eneide.

Eppure, in accordo con la visione sferica del tempo (il tempo storico specificamente umano), solo il popolo con la memoria più lunga potrà avere il più grande futuro. Gli italiani, che piaccia o meno, avranno sempre la facoltà di attingere al loro glorioso passato per proiettarsi in un grandioso avvenire. Anche nelle epoche dell’oblio e della rimozione forzata può riemergere, in qualsiasi momento, la sua memoria latente e, insieme, la possibilità di una nuova origine, di un nuovo inizio. E Virgilio, con la sua epica sublime, ci ha lasciato la più alta espressione di questa formidabile volontà di destino.

Gli italiani, dunque, potranno sempre riappropriarsi della loro memoria più remota e quindi del loro più fulgido avvenire, ossia di quella «Terza Roma» che fu già profetizzata da Giuseppe Mazzini e da Alfredo Oriani. Sembra anzi come inscritta nel nostro sangue questa peculiarità di rigenerare continuamente noi stessi come popolo. Così infatti D’Annunzio salutava l’Italia: «o Semprerinascente, o fiore di tutte le stirpi, aroma di tutta la terra Italia! Italia, sacra alla nuova Aurora con l’aratro e la prora». Gli italiani, dopotutto, non hanno conosciuto altro che «rinascimenti», «rinascenze», «risorgimenti». Piaccia o meno ai profeti del nulla e della «fine della storia», dunque, il mito virgiliano di Enea, scardinando la meccanica temporale, continuerà a vivere in noi come un’eco remota che, risuonando nei millenni, ci ingiunge, ancora una volta, di rivendicarne la grandezza. Nella storia del popolo italiano sarà sempre possibile l’irruzione dell’origine come destino. Come marmo che vince la palude.

Valerio Benedetti

 

 

"Le temps qualifié ou la réorientation du monde"

par Laurent JAMES

Conférence de Laurent JAMES au séminaire de la COBEMA du 28 mars 2010. Il y traite du "Temps qualifié, ou la ré-orientation du monde". Très intéressant moment de tradition primordiale partagée par l'Humanité entière depuis toujours.

Jean Parvulesco, visionnaire d'Empire

Jean Parvulesco, visionnaire d'Empire

JAPON : LA LÉGITIME DÉSOBÉISSANCE DES 47 RÔNINS

JAPON : LA LÉGITIME DÉSOBÉISSANCE DES 47 RÔNINS

 

«Ce qu’ils ont fait de leur vivant résonne pour l'éternité....»

Rémy Valat
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

L’histoire des 47 rônins dépasse le cadre d’une simple affaire de droit féodal : ce serait l’engagement de vassaux, fidèles à leur maître jusqu’au sacrifice de leurs vies. Le drame se déroule au début du XVIIIe siècle, période durant laquelle le Japon est réunifié et pacifié sous l’égide du Shôgun. Le port et l’usage des armes sont contrôlés ; il est l’apanage quasi-exclusif des samouraïs. Les samouraïs sont ceux qui « servent » (étymologie du nom vient du verbe « servir », saburaû) leurs maîtres, le Shôgun et le pays. Ils sont pour cela présentés comme des « modèles » pour la société : à la fois guerriers et administrateurs, leur éducation et l’étiquette qui régit leur vie sont rigides.

En 1701, deux Daimyos (seigneurs en charge d’une province et en relation directe avec le Shôgun) sont chargés d’organiser une cérémonie en l’honneur de l’Empereur. Asano Naganori du fief d'Akō (province de Harima) commet l’impair de blesser le maître des cérémonies, Kira Kōzuke-no-Suke-Yoshinaka (14 mars). Ce dernier est dépeint comme un être corrompu jusqu’à la mœlle et se serait, selon la tradition populaire, montré arrogant et méprisant envers ces deux seigneurs, insuffisamment généreux à son goût à rémunérer son talent et ses services. Perte du contrôle de soi, agression à main armée sur un haut fonctionnaire de l’ État : Asano doit, sur l’ordre du Shôgun Tokugawa Tsuyanoshi (1646-1709), procéder le jour même au suicide rituel (seppuku). Ōishi Kuranosuke Yoshio, principal conseiller de la famille d'Asano prend aussitôt en main la sécurité des membres et des biens du clan menacés de confiscation et mûrit un plan de vengeance. Les différents récits et le florès d’interprétations théâtrales ou cinématographiques sur les conditions des préparatifs clandestins et de l’assaut final ont, certes été enjolivés et idéalisés, mais quel souffle à la lecture de ce récit ! La mise en scène la plus connue, popularisée par le théâtre kabuki, est l’ œuvre principale de Takeda Izumo (1748). Il existe une traduction française de l’épopée des 47 rônins, traduite par George Soulié de Morant en 1927, et rééditée régulièrement. Nous y puisons cet extrait, révélateur de l’esprit idéal du guerrier japonais.

 

Ōishi vient de rassembler le clan, 300 guerriers stupéfaits par l’annonce de la mort de leur seigneur et dans l’attente d’instructions : « Venger notre seigneur, voilà notre devoir. Ce que je propose, le voici. Nous allons jurer de ne reculer devant aucun danger pour tuer Kira et sa famille. Si nous n’avons pas réussi dans un an, c’est que l’entreprise est impossible. Nous nous réunirons alors devant la porte de la forteresse, ceux du moins qui auront survécu aux combats et nous nous donnerons la mort, montrant à tous notre fidélité. [...] Je vais préparer un serment écrit avec notre sang. Revenez tous ici demain, à l’heure du Tigre, pour le signer. Pour aujourd’hui, nous allons nous partager le trésor du clan : il ne faut pas qu’il tombe aux mains de nos ennemis.»
 

[La séance terminée chaque samouraï reçoit 20 lingots d’or et l’assemblée se disperse. Le lendemain, seuls 63 rônins répondirent à l’appel et Ōishi de déclarer :]  « Les épreuves que nous allons subir sont telles qu’une âme ordinaire ne saurait les supporter sans défaillir. En reconnaissant eux-mêmes leur faiblesse, ils m’ont évité le plus difficile des choix : c’est bien. Pour vanner le blé, il suffit de le laisser tomber au souffle de la brise. Le bon grain s’entasse d’un côté, la balle et les fétus de l’autre. [Puis, les loyaux samouraïs signèrent de leur sang le serment scellant leur sort pour l’éternité]. » 

Ce geste symbolique et sacré revêt surtout une dimension politique : c’est aussi un acte de désobéissance. Cet engagement solennel n’est pas sans rappeler les contrats d’ikki : les ikki sont ces révoltes populaires conduites pour réparer une injustice commise par les autorités ou un seigneur, insurrections parfois organisées par des guerriers pour se faire justice eux-mêmes ; ces derniers étant trop fiers pour laisser le règlement de leurs différends entre les mains des pouvoirs publics, fussent-ils le gouvernement du Shôgun (lire sur ce sujet : Katsumata Shizuo, Ikki. Coalitions, ligues et révoltes dans le Japon d’autrefois, traduction parue aux éditions du CNRS en 2011).
 

La maison de Kira est prise d’assaut le matin du 14 décembre 1702 : le maître et les hommes des des lieux seront passés au fil de l’épée. Les rônins emportèrent la tête de Kira sur la tombe de leur seigneur au temple de Sengaku-ji. Les survivants offrirent leur reddition au Shôgun et mettent celui-ci dans l’embarras. Car si la vendetta été légitime sur le fond et respectueuse des règles et de la coutume du Bushidō, elle ne l’était plus sur la forme : les Sainte Vehme étaient prohibées par le shôgunat, le pouvoir rappelle que le droit de faire justice est une prérogative régalienne dans un pays récemment unifié. Le shôgun les fît condamner à mort tout en leur offrant une fin honorable. Le 4 février 1703, 46 rônins (le 47e , le plus jeune, aurait fait l’objet de la clémence des juges selon la tradition populaire) se donnent la mort par éventration, et selon leurs vœux, leurs corps reposent auprès de celui de leur maître au cimetière du temple de Sengaku-ji.

Les témoignages historiques dépeignent différemment les motivations de ces samouraïs : le seigneur Asano n’était guère apprécié par ses serviteurs, et ce serait 58 guerriers (sur les 308 du clan) qui auraient prêté serment, non pas par simple esprit de vengeance, mais par réprobation du traitement injuste réservé à Asano par le Shôgun. Ce dernier aurait dû sanctionner les deux parties, d’autant qu’il y eut un précédent survenu en 1684. Un guerrier, selon l’historien Nakayama Mikio, en aurait blessé un autre en ce même lieu. Le premier aurait été tué sur le champ par un maître-officier du gouvernement et le second exilé. Enfin, seuls les criminels étaient exécutés ou contraints de se suicider à l’extérieur de leur maison. Les conditions du suicide d’Asano ont été considérées comme un acte infamant. C’est pour ces motifs que les rônins ont souhaité laver l’affront fait à leur maître et à leur maison.
 

Cette froide et habile, vengeance a été vivement critiquée par Yamamoto Tsunetomo (l’auteur du Hagakure) qui estimait plus conforme au code de l’honneur un règlement rapide du contentieux. Yamamoto Tsunetomo, fidèle serviteur du Shôgun, mît peut-être en avant ce point de la coutume pour discréditer Ōishi et ses hommes qui n’auraient techniquement pas pu mettre au point leur riposte en de si brefs délais, au moment où Kira se trouvait sur ses gardes et bien protégé par ses hommes (rappelons que c’est par respect envers la réglementation shogunale que Yamamoto Tsunetomo ne put accompagner son seigneur dans la mort : le suicide par accompagnement lui a été formellement interdit). Le Shôgun a commis une maladresse, en ce sens qu’au Japon, les suicides rituels avaient pour but de limiter les vendettas : l’honneur des familles lavé, les désirs de vengeance devaient être étouffés et dans le cas de leur mise à exécution, celle-ci était sévèrement sanctionnée. C’est le contraire qui, dans cet affaire, s’est produit.

Cette histoire eut un retentissement immédiat. Si les Japonais du début du deuxième siècle du Shôgunat y ont trouvé un exutoire à la rigidité du régime (surtout en matière de mœurs), le succès intemporel de ce drame tient à son authenticité. Les Japonais sont peu-être plus sensibles que d’autres peuples à l’engagement et au don de soi. Les paroles n’ont de valeur à leurs yeux que si elles sont suivis par un acte sincère. Quelque puisse être les motivations de ces rônins, c’est bien un sentiment positif, l’esprit de justice, qui les animait. Leur désobéissance était légitime et ils ont agi en pleine connaissance du sort qui leur était réservé. Ils ont préféré mourir dans l’honneur que de vivre dans la honte dans une société, et c’est encore le cas aujourd’hui au Japon, où pèse lourdement le regard des autres. Un geste tragique de refus et de liberté qui résonne pour l’éternité, comme l’atteste les témoignages de respect et de dévotion encore porté par les Japonais sur les tombes des 46 rônins....

Illustration en tête d'article : Ancien château d’Edo (actuellement le parc attenant au palais impérial) : emplacement du bâtiment à l’intérieur duquel, Kira Kōzuke-no-Suke-Yoshinaka sera blessé par Asano Naganori le14 mars 1701.©R.Valat

Alain Daniélou’s Virtue, Success, Pleasure, & Liberation

Alain Daniélou’s Virtue, Success, Pleasure, & Liberation

By Collin Cleary 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Alain Daniélou
Virtue, Success, Pleasure, and Liberation: The Four Aims of Life in the Tradition of Ancient India ^[2]
Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1993.

One hears a great deal today about “multiculturalism,” and the multicultural society. We (i.e., we Americans) are told that ours is a multicultural society. But, curiously, multiculturalism is also spoken of as a goal. What this reveals is that multiculturalism is not simply the recognition and affirmation of the fact that the U.S.A. is made up of different people from different cultural backgrounds. Instead, multiculturalism is an ideology which is predicated on cultural relativism. Its proponents want to convince people that (a) all cultures are equally good, rich, interesting, and wholesome, and that (b) a multicultural society can exist in which no one culture is dominant. The first idea is absurd, the second is impossible.

The apostles of multiculturalism are moved less by a genuine desire to “celebrate diversity” than by a hatred for Northern European culture, which is the semi-official, dominant culture of America. Indeed, multiculturalists generally nurture the most naive and simplistic ideas of what a culture is. Their conception of “culture” is fixated at the perceptual level: culture is costume,music, dance, decoration, food. What is essential to culture, however, is a certain Weltanschauung: a view of the world, and of human nature. It is in their response to these world views that multiculturalists reveal their true colors, for they tolerate and permit only those elements of a culture’s world view that do not conflict with liberal ideology.

Out of one side of their mouths, the multiculturalists tell us that one cannot judge a culture, that morality is culturally relative, that cultures are not better or worse, just “different,” and that we must revel in these differences. Thus, the English do not drive on the “wrong” side of the road, merely the left side. But when it’s not a matter of traffic laws, but a matter of severed clitorises, then the other, louder side of the multiculturalists’ mouths open, and they tell us that this sort of thing isn’t just different, it’s evil. In addition to this, one also sees that multiculturalism involves a relentless trivialization of important cultural differences. Thus, college students are encouraged to see religion almost as a matter of “local color.” Isn’t it wonderful that the Indians cook such spicy food, and worship such colorful gods! Isn’t it all terribly charming? They are further encouraged to view religion as a thoroughly irrational affair. Rather than encouraging an appreciation for different faiths, what this produces is a condescending attitude, and resistance to taking the claims of religion seriously when they conflict with the “rational” agenda of modern liberalism.

Indeed, multiculturalism is so anti-cultural that one is tempted to see behind it an even deeper, more sinister agenda. Perhaps the whole idea is to deliberately gut the world’s cultures, reducing their differences to matters of dress and cuisine, and to replace those earthborn guts with a plastic, Naugahyde culture of secularism, scientism, and egalitarianism. Why? Because real, significant cultural differences make it very hard for our corporations to do business overseas and to sell their wares. Solution: homogenization masquerading as “celebration of diversity.” The multiculturalists are right when they declare that de facto, the United States is a multicultural society. But there has never been a multicultural society in the history of the world in which there was not one dominant culture which provided a framework allowing the others to co-exist. To the multiculturalist, the unacknowledged framework is modern liberalism. I will assume that I do not have to rehearse for my readers the many arguments for why modern liberalism is untenable as a long-term societal framework.Where should we look, then, for a framework for a multicultural society? Why not look to the Indian caste system? It was the caste system that allowed Aryan and non-Aryan to co-exist peacefully in India for centuries.

The liberals will immediately object that the caste system is oppressive and unjust. In Virtue, Success, Pleasure and Liberation, however, Alain Daniélou argues that the caste system is actually a supremely just and peaceful arrangement. It is just because it is built on a recognition of real human difference; a “celebration of diversity,” if you will. Aristotle held that justice is treating equals equally, and unequals unequally. If people are not the same, then it is a mistake to treat them as if they are. The caste system is built on the idea that some human beings are born to work, others to fight and lead, and others to pray. The caste system gives to each human being a place, a community, a code of ethics, and a sense of identity and pride. Daniélou points out that although the system involves hierarchy, each level of the hierarchy is regarded as intrinsically valuable and as essential. Each plays a role that is regarded as important and indispensable. Thus, it is the caste system which truly affirms that different groups are merely different, not better or worse.

Is Daniélou whitewashing the caste system? Consider the words he quotes from the Mahabharata: “There is no superior caste. The Universe is the work of the Immense Being. The beings created by him were only divided into castes according to their aptitude.” But what of individuals born to the wrong caste? For example, what of a child born to the merchant class who shows aptitude to be a priest or scholar? Such things happen. Daniélou tells us that exceptional individuals are allowed to live “outside” the caste system, and are accepted as valuable members of the society as a whole. Modern society is structured on the premise that everyone is exceptional and can make up his mind what he wants to do. Given that sort of freedom, most people get lost — as witness the modern phenomenon of the “slacker,” or the flotsam and jetsam going in and out of psychiatrists’ offices every day.

Despite what I have said, this book is not a treatise on the caste system, but on the four things that all human lives must possess or achieve in order to be complete. In discussing virtue, success, pleasure, and liberation, Daniélou quotes extensively from ancient Indian texts, offering us an abundance of excellent advice about how to understand life and to live well. Indeed, this is really a book about how to lead a truly human life. Daniélou places the four aims in a cosmic context, showing how the same fourfold division is present in all levels of reality. It is present, of course, in the four castes (worker/artisan, producer/merchant, warrior/aristocrat, priest/scholar), and in the four stages of biological development (childhood, youth, maturity, old age), the four seasons, the four elements, the four races of humanity (black, yellow, red, white), the cycle of ages (yugas), the four bodily functions (digestion, assimilation, circulation, excretion), and the four points of the compass (in this order, significantly: south, east, west, north).

This is an excellent companion volume to Daniélou’s The Myths and Gods of India ^[3].

Source: Tyr, vol.. 1 (Atlanta: Ultra, 2002).

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/virtue-success-pleasure-liberation/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Virtue.jpg

[2] Virtue, Success, Pleasure, and Liberation: The Four Aims of Life in the Tradition of Ancient India: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005IQ6AVY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B005IQ6AVY&linkCode=as2&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkId=2SMLM6Q3BGWZDR7W

[3] The Myths and Gods of India: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005PQUZ3G/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B005PQUZ3G&linkCode=as2&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkId=7R45BK5EQM4HKVC3

Alain Daniélou’s The Myths & Gods of India

Alain Daniélou’s The Myths & Gods of India

By Collin Cleary

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Alain Daniélou
The Myths and Gods of India ^[2]
Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1991.
(Originally published as Hindu Polytheism by Bollingen Foundation, New York, 1964.)

Typically, those who profess an interest in what might be called “Indo-European spirituality” gravitate toward either the Celtic or Germanic traditions. The Indian tradition tends to be ignored. In part, this is because present-day Indians seem so different from us. We think of their culture and philosophy as “Eastern,” as alien. Physically, the Indians look very different from those of European descent (though higher caste Indians tend to look very European, right down to lighter skin and hair, and sometimes blue eyes). But if we wish to rediscover the religion and traditions of our ancestors, what better place is there to begin than with India? The oldest Indo-European texts are the Vedas, after all. To be sure, it is hard to separate what comes from the ancient Aryans in Indian religion, myth, and mysticism, and what was contributed by the indigenous peoples conquered by the Aryans. But the same problem exists with respect to the Celtic and Germanic traditions. In addition, we know far more about the culture and religion of the ancient Aryans who invaded India, than we do about the culture and religion of the Celts and the Vikings. For one thing, more ancient texts survive in India. Therefore, anyone wishing to re-construct the “old ways” must become deeply immersed in all things Indian.

It is a cliche to state this in a review, but I write the following with total sincerity: if you read only one book on Hinduism, it must be Daniélou’s Myths and Gods of India. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why one would need to read any other. Danielou’s account of Hinduism is exhaustive, profound, and detailed. The book contains, first of all, cogent arguments on behalf of polytheism.

It details the Indian cosmogony and cosmology; the nature of Space, Time, and Thought; the nature of Brahman and Maya. Daniélou gives a complete description of every major Hindu divinity in terms of his or her function, myths, and symbolism. He details the minor gods and genii. He discusses the theory behind Mantras and Yantras. There is even extensive coverage of ritual, and the manner in which the gods must be worshiped. Alain Daniélou was born in 1907 in Paris. He was a true Renaissance man, trained in music, painting, and dance. He gave recitals and exhibited his paintings. Daniélou was also an avid sportsman: a canoeing champion, and an expert race-car driver.

He was also homosexual. Daniélou and his gay lover ventured to India, traveling around in a deluxe, Silverstream camper imported from southern California, photographing erotic sculpture. They later settled down in a Maharajah’s estate on the banks of the Ganges and devoted themselves to Sanskrit, Hinduism, music, and entertaining. Daniélou gradually “went native” and stayed in India many years. In time, he became known throughout the world as an authority on Indian music and culture. He published works dealing with Hindu religion, society, music, sculpture, architecture, and other topics. It was Daniélou, more than anyone else, who was responsible for popularizing Indian music in the West (among other things, he was the “discoverer” of Ravi Shankar). Daniélou died in 1994.

The Myths and Gods of India is a delight to read, but it can also be treated as a reference work for those needing a clear and accurate account of various gods or Hindu religious concepts. For the student of Inda-European culture, the book is a treasure trove. Indeed, those who are familiar with the Inda-European comparativist school of Georges Dumézil, Jaan Puhvel, and others, will get the most out of this book. I will offer a few brief examples here.

Daniélou writes on page 27 that “Human beings, according to their nature and stage of development, are inclined toward . . . different aspects of the Cosmic Being. Those in whom consciousness is predominant worship the gods (deva); those in whom action or existence predominates worship genii (yaksha) and antigods (asura); and those in whom enjoyment or sensation predominates worship ghosts and spirits (bhuta and preta).” This suggests, of course, the Inda-European tripartition identified by Dumézil. On page 66 we learn that Soma was “brought to earth by a large hawk,” just as Odin, in the form of an eagle, brought mead to the JEsir. On page 87 we are told that “The earth is also represented as a goddess, or as a cow that feeds everyone with her milk. She is the mother of life, the substance of all things.” What can this remind us of, except the Norse Audumla?

There also seem to be parallels between Agni (the god of fire) and Loki. Like Loki, Agni is an outcast among the gods. Daniélou tells us further that, “The fire of destruction, Agni’s most fearful form, was born of the primeval waters and remains hidden under the sea, ever ready to destroy the world” (p. 89). This is reminiscent of the Midgard Serpent, the progeny of Loki. Page 151:
“When Vishnu sleeps, the universe dissolves into its formless state, represented as the causal ocean. The remnants of manifestation are represented as the serpent Remainder (Sesa) coiled upon itself and floating upon the abysmal waters.”

Daniélou tells us (p. 92) that “the sun . . . is envisaged [by the Hindus] under two aspects. As one of the spheres, one of the Vasus, the physical sun is the celestial form of fire, of agni. As the source of light, of warmth, of life, of knowledge, the solar energy is the source of all life, represented in the twelve sons-of-the-Primordial-Vastness (Adityas), the twelve sovereign principles.” In Futhark (pp. 51-52), Edred Thorsson tells us that “The sun was known by two special names in the North . . . Sol represents the phenomenon, while sunna is the noumenon, the spiritual power residing in the concept.” Also, the “twelve sons-of-the-Primordial-Vastness” immanent within the solar energy must remind us of the twelve sig-runes that make up the Wewelsburg “sun-wheel” of Karl Maria Wiligut.

Page 99: “When the gods were receiving the ambrosia of immortality, the Moon [Soma; equivalent to Mead] detected the anti-god Rahu disguised as a god. Because of the Moon Rahu had to die, but although his head was severed from his body, he could not truly die, for he had tasted the ambrosia. His head remained alive.” Mimir?

Page 103: “Rudra, the lord of tears, is said to have sprung from the forehead of the Immense-Being (Brahma) and, at the command of that god, to have divided himself into a male form and a female form . . . “Athena?

Page 103: “The Maruts (immortals) are a restless, warlike troupe of flashy young men, transposition in space of the hordes of young warriors called the marya (mortals). . . . They are the embodiment of moral and heroic deeds and of the exuberance of youth.” Maruts = Einherjar; Marya = Indo-European Männerbünde. Page 104: “The Maruts are the friends of Indra, the wielder of the thunderbolt . . .” Thor? Page 110: Indra’s thunderbolt is “shaped like a mace … ”

Page 111: “Indra had been the deity worshiped among the pastoral people of Vraja.” Again, just as Thor was.

Page 118: Varuna “is the ruler of the ‘other side,’ of the invisible world.” He is “said to be an antigod, a magician.” Odin? Page 119: “He catches the evildoers and binds them with his noose.” Criminals sacrificed to Odin were hung. Varuna also “knows the track of birds in the sky,” just as Odin knows the track of Huginn and Muninn.

Page 132: The god of death is named Yama, which means “Twin” (Ymir). “Yama’s brother is the lawgiver, Manu, who shares with him the title of progenitor of mankind.” Yama “owns two four-eyed dogs with wide nostrils . . . They watch the path of the dead.” What can this remind us of except the Greek hellhound, Cerberus?

Page 138: “In contrast to the gods, the antigods [asura] are the inclinations of the senses which, by their nature, belong to the obscuring tendency, and which delight in life, that is, in the activities of the life energies in all the fields of sensation.” This is an accurate description of the Norse Vanir. Asura is cognate with Aesir, so, oddly enough, the term shifts meaning either in the Norse or the Indian tradition.

Page 159: The four ages (yugas) are represented as white (the golden age), red, yellow, and black (the dark age). The stages of the alchemical process (as represented in the West) are black, white, yellow, and red.

Pages 243-45 detail the Upanishadic account of creation out of the primal man Purusha: “He desired a second. He became as large as a woman and man in close embrace. He divided himself into two. From him arose a husband and a wife. Hence it is that everyone is but half a being. The vacant space is filled by a wife.” This is extraordinarily similar to the account of the creation of
men and woman given by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium. The world is then created out of Purusha’s body-just as the world is created out of Ymir’s body in Norse myth. “The virile member was separated; from this virile member came forth semen and from semen the earthly waters.” This is identical to the account of the creation of the ocean in the Greek myth of the sacrifice of Ouranos by Kronos.

The account of the hero Kumara/Skana (pp. 297-300) is strikingly like the saga of Sigurd, and also similar in some respects to the Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach. The “essences” (apsaras; pp. 304-305) are “water nymphs, eternally young women who are the courtesans and dancers of heaven.” Rhine Maidens? “They are depicted as uncommonly beautiful, with lotus eyes, slender waists, and large hips. By their languid postures and sweet words they rob those who see them of their wisdom and their intellect.” Sirens? “One can master them by stealing their clothes while they bathe. They choose lovers among the dead fallen on the battlefield.” Valkyries?

The above merely scratches the surface of this immensely rich text, which demands careful study and multiple readings.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/alain-danielous-the-myths-and-gods-of-india/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MythsandGodsofIndia.jpg

[2] The Myths and Gods of India: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892813547/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0892813547&linkCode=as2&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkId=IH7O6QJKVC7I7LVQ

Paganism & Christianity, Nietzsche & Evola

Paganism & Christianity, Nietzsche & Evola

By Jonathan Bowden 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Editor’s Note:

This text continues the transcript by V. S. of Jonathan Bowden’s interview at the Union Jack Club in London on Saturday, November 21, 2009, after his lecture/performance on Punch and Judy ^[2]. The title is editorial. 

Q: When did you decide to convert to paganism and why?

B: Well, I never really converted to paganism. I mean, there are some orthodox pagans, if you can have such a thing, who probably think I am not one. But I’m a Nietzschean and that’s a different system. Somebody made this for me. [Points to odal rune pendant.] And I like Odinic paganism sort of as an objectification of my sort of sensibility. Does one believe the gods objectively exist in another realm? Well, you see, religion is a philosophy about life which is sacristic and has rituals in which you partly act out, therefore it’s more important because it’s made slightly more concrete than ideas or it’s really just based upon ideas. There are relatively simple but powerful ideas at the crux of all the big religious systems. Most people are born in a system and just accept that and go along with it as long as it’s not too onerous or they feel like they live their life through it properly.

I just agree with the ethics of that type of Nordic paganism, which is really how the Vikings lived and how they behaved. I’m less concerned with small groups, which I respect. I like the Odinic Rite, but I personally believe that those sorts of things will only ever activate post-modern minorities and very small ones at that.

I think people should identify with what they think they are and the values that they hold. This symbol really means strength or courage or masculinity or the first man or the first principle of war or the metaphysics of conflict. So, I just think it’s a positive system of value.

I never really was a Christian. Culturally, I have great admiration for elements of Christian art. More so than most people who are pagan who have violently reacted against it. I don’t really share that emotionalism. But I don’t agree with Christian ethics. Deep down, they’ve ruined the West, and we’re in the state that we are because of them.

Q: Just added on to that: How do we create more Nietzscheans? How do we spread Nietzscheanism as a religion, as an idea?

B: You’ve got to get people quite young. I think you’ve got to introduce alternative value systems to them. This is a society that says weakness is good, weakness should be pitied, the ill are weak, the disabled are weak, people who’ve got various things wrong with them (too fat, too thin, bits dropping off) they need help. They may need help. But the value system that lies behind that desire to help worships the fact of weakness and the fact that people are broken. If you worship the idea of strength and tell the weak to become stronger, which is a reverse idea for helping them essentially. You help them in order to get stronger. You totally reverse the energy pattern and you’ve reversed the system of morals that exists in this culture now. You’ve reversed the sort of things that Rowan Williams or his predecessor or his likely successor always says, basically. I think that’s what you have to do.

I personally think it’s a moral revolution, not anything political, that will save the West, because all the technology is here, all the systems of power are here. You only have to change what’s in people’s minds. It’s very difficult though.

Q: So, to a young person watching this video, never heard of you before, where would he go to find out about Nietzscheanism?

B: Just go to the Wikipedia page, surprisingly, although it’s a bit trivial, is actually quite accurate in a tendentious way. Although some of the philosophical debates about him and the genealogy of his works might confuse people because it views it in an academic way. And you don’t need to put his name to it. There’s a cluster of power-moral, individualistic, elitist, partly antinomian, partly gnostic, partly not, partly pagan, vitalist and other ideas which go with that sort of area.

Strength is morality. Weakness is sin. Weakness requires punishment. If you’re weak, if you’re obese, if you’re a drug addict, become less so. Become stronger. Move towards the sun. Become more coherent. Become more articulate. Cast more of a shadow. It’s almost a type of positive behaviorism in some ways. But it’s not somebody wagging their finger and so on, because you’re doing it for yourself. It comes from inside.

Q2: Do you not think though that Nietzscheanism doesn’t have a transcendental element to it?

B: That’s why I’m wearing this [rune pendant], you see, because I probably think there ought to be such a thing. Many people need to go beyond that. If his thinking before he went mad, probably because he had tertiary syphilis, it’s up to sort of 1880, so we’re talking about thinking that’s 130 years old.

I think in some ways he’s an anatomist of Christianity’s decline, because Christianity been declining mentally and in some ways extending out into the Third World where it’s real catchment area now is. I mean, there will be a non-White pope soon. Christianity will begin to wear the face of the south very soon. It’s the ideal religion for the south. It’s pity for those who fail, for those who are weak, for those who are hungry, for those who are broken. Have pity on your children, O Lord. It’s an ideal religion. Don’t take it through violence or fear or aggression. Submit and be thankful for what He will give you in His wisdom.

But it’s ruining us. For centuries we were strong even despite that faith, but of course we made use of it. The part that fits us is the extreme transcendence of Christian doctrine. That’s what Indo-Europeans like about that faith. The enormous vaulting cathedrals, the Gothic idea that you can go up and up and up. It’s that element in it that we like, and we made into ourselves. But we forgot the ethical substratum. We forgot the sort of troll-like ethical element that there is no other value but sympathy, there is no other value than compassion, that love is the basis of all life. And ultimately that is a feminine view of civilization which will lead to its collapse in masculine terms.

Q2: How would you view the works of Julius Evola?

B: Yes, they’re the counter-balance to Nietzsche. There is a lot of religious elements in there of a perennialist sort that a lot of modern minds can’t accept. You see, Nietzsche is a switchblade, and nearly all people in this society are modern even if they think they’re not. Nietzsche is a modern thinker. Nietzsche is a modernist. Nietzsche can reach the modern mind. Nietzsche’s the most Right-wing formulation within the modern mind that people can accept.

My view is that people who accept Evola straight out aren’t living in the modern world. That’s not a criticism. It’s a description of where they are. I think for people to become illiberal they have to become illiberal first within the modern world. Some people would say you have to go outside of it. You know, the culture of the ruins and the revolt against the modern world, per se. But I personally think that we’re in modernity.

But there will be people who go to Nietzsche and Thus Spake Zarathustra, which is really a semi- or pseudo-religious text, is not enough and they’ll want to go beyond that and they’ll want a degree and a tier of religiosity. The dilemma always in the West is what to choose. Back to Christianity or on to paganism? Which system do you choose?

Evola said he was a Catholic pagan, didn’t he? One knows what he means. But I see paganism peeping out of everything. I see paganism peeping out of Protestantism, the most Jewish form of Christianity, through its power-individualism and its extremist individuality (Kierkegaard, Carlyle, Nietzsche). I see paganism saturating Catholicism and peeping out of it at every turn, aesthetically, artistically, the art of the Renaissance, the return of the Greco-Roman sensibility, the humanism of the ancient world. Some of the greatest classicists were Medieval Popes and so on. I see it just looming out. The whole structure of the Catholic Church is a Roman imperial structure, Christianized. So, I see it peeping out.

Our law is Roman. All of our leaders were educated and steeped in the classical world to provide a dialectical corollary to Christianity without them being told that’s what is happening. The decline of the classics is partly because people don’t want to go back there, basically. So, you don’t teach it to anyone apart from tiny little public school elites, which are .2% of the population who read a few authors who no one else even knows exist. You know, big deal.

The difficulty with Evola is that it’s a very great leap for the modern mind. Although in his sensibility, I agree with his sensibility, really. I agree with him going out amidst the bombings, not caring. I agree with that sort of attitude towards life, which is an aristocratic attitude towards life. But we’re living in a junk food, liberal, low middle class society. You’ve got to start where you are. I think Nietzsche is strong enough meat for most people and is far, far, far too strong for 80% now.

Today, the mentally disabled have been allowed into the Paralympics. So, you will have the 100 yard cerebral palsy dash at the next Olympics in London in 2012. This is the world we’re living in. Nietzsche would say that’s ridiculous and so on. And that is a shocking and transgressive and morally ugly attitude from the contemporary news that we see. So, it’s almost as if Nietzsche’s tough enough for this moment.

But I’m interesting in that he said, “God is dead in the minds of men.” That doesn’t necessarily mean, of course, although he was a militant atheist, he’s living open the idea that . . . [God objectively exists—Ed.]. You see, the Christian idea of God was dying around him, mentally, and it has died. I mean, hardly anyone really, deep down, believes that now. Even the people who say that they do don’t in the way that they did 100 years ago or their predecessors did.

So, it has died, but I think there are metaphysically objectivist standards outside life. Whether our civilization can revive without a return to them is very open. It’s very questionable. Where that discourse is to come from is . . . The tragedy would be if Christianity sort of facilitated our greatness, but ended up ruining us, which of course might be the true thesis.

Now we’re getting into deep waters.

Q: What is your view of Abrahamic religions?

B: I think religion is a good thing. The Right always supports the right of religion to exist. Religion does cross ethnic and racial boundaries. Afghanistan was Buddhist once. I prefer people to have some sort of religious viewpoint, even the most tepid sort of thing, but none at all, because at least there is a structure that is in some sense prior.

But, personally, I prefer tribally based religions. I prefer religions that are about blood and genetics and honor and identity and are nominalist and that are specific. But I think people will adopt different systems because they’re physiologically different even within their group. You can see that about certain people. Certain people, Christianity suits them very well and they can be quite patriotic and quite decent people and so on in that system and there we are. But for me? No.

I’m a barbarian in some ways. People can worship what gods they want within the Western tradition, and that’s all right.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/paganism-christianity-nietzsche-evola/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/NietzscheSeated.jpg

[2] Punch and Judy: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/the-real-meaning-of-punch-and-judy/

Kemi Seba/Laurent James : "Le pérénialisme global ou l'union ésotérique des dissidences"

Kemi Seba/Laurent James :

"Le pérénialisme global ou l'union ésotérique des dissidences"

Jean Parvulesco, les aventuriers de l'Esprit

Jean Parvulesco, les aventuriers de l'Esprit

Julius Evola: The World’s Most Right-Wing Thinker

Julius Evola:
The World’s Most Right-Wing Thinker

By Jonathan Bowden 

Editor’s Note:

This text is the transcript by V. S. of Jonathan Bowden’s lecture on Evola delivered to the 27th meeting of the New Right in London on June 5, 2010. As usual, I have deleted a few false starts and introduced punctuation and paragraph breaks for maximum clarity. You can listen to it at YouTube here ^[2]. Three passages are marked unintelligible. If you can make out the words, please post a comment below or contact me at [e-mail] ^[3]. 

This is the 27th meeting of the New Right, and we’ve waited quite a long time to discuss one of the most important thinkers of the radical Right and of a Traditional perspective upon mankind and reality, and that is Baron Julius Evola.

Now, Evola is in some respects to the Right of everybody that we’ve ever considered in nearly any of these talks and not in a sort of unprofound or sententious manner. Julius Evola was somebody who rejected purposefully and metaphysically the modern world. Now, what does that mean? It basically means that at the beginning of the last century, Baron Evola, who is a Sicilian baron, decided that there are about four alternatives in relation to modern life for those of heroic spirit.

One was suicide and to make off with one’s self by opening one’s veins in the warm bath like Sicilian Mafiosi and Italian cardinals and Sicilian brigands and ancient Romans.

Another was to become a Nietzschean, which for many people in tradition is a modern version of some, but by no means all, of their ideas, and it’s a way of riding the tiger of modernity and dealing with that which exists around us now. Later, people like Evola and other perennial Traditionalists as we may well call them became increasingly critical of Nietzsche and regard him as a sort of decadent modern and an active nihilist with a bit of spirit and vigor but doesn’t really have the real position.

I make things quite clear. I would be regarded by most people as a Nietzschean, and philosophically that’s the motivation I’ve always had since my beginning. That’s why parties don’t really mean that much to me, because ideas are eternal and ideas and values come back, but movements and the ways and forms that they take and expressions that they have come and go.

Now, moving from the Nietzschean perspective, which of course relates to the great German thinker at the end of the 19th century and his active and quasi-existential and volitional view of man, is the idea of foundational religiosity or primary religious and spiritual purpose. In high philosophy, there are views which dominate everyone around us and modern media and everyone who goes to a tertiary educational college, such as a university, in the Western world. These are modern ideas, which are materialistic and anti-spiritual and aspiritual and anti-religious or antagonistic to prior religious belief so much so that it’s taken as a given that those are the views that one holds. All of the views that convulsed the Western intelligentsia since the Second European Civil War which ended in 1945, ideas like existentialism and behaviorism and structuralism and so on, are all atheistic and material views. They’ve been discussed in other meetings. As one goes back slightly, one has various currents of opinion such as Marxism and Freudianism and behaviorism beginning in the late 19th century and convulsing much of the 20th century.

But these are views that an advanced Evolian type of perspective rejects. These views are anti-metaphysical and often counter the idea that metaphysics doesn’t exist, that it’s the school returning of the late Medieval period, what was called the Medieval schoolmen. In some of his books, Evola talks about Heidegger, Martin Heidegger, of course, who got in trouble in the 1930s for his alleged academic positioning in relation to the most controversial regime of modernity. Heidegger, in my opinion, and I’ve talked about Heidegger before, was a quasi-essentialist to an essentialist thinker. Evola believes he’s an existentialist, but that’s largely by the by.

These anti-metaphysical views are that which surrounds us. All liberalism, all feminism, all quasi-Marxism, all bourgeois Marxism, all cultural Marxism, the extreme Left moderated a bit into the Center, high capitalist economics and the return of old liberalism against the Keynesianism which was the soft Marxism that replaced it earlier in the 20th century . . . All of these ideas are materialistic and atheistic and aspiritual and anti-metaphysical.

You could argue that the heroic Nietzschean dilemma in relation to what is called modernity is a quasi-metaphysical and metaphysically subjectivist view that there are values outside man and outside history that human beings commune with by virtue of the intensity with which they live their own lives. But there is a question mark over (1) the supernatural and (2) whether there is anything beyond, outside man within which those values could be anchored.

So, the idea of permanence, the idea of a metaphysical realm which most prior civilizations are based on—indeed Evola and the Traditionalists would say all prior civilizations are based on—is questioned by the Nietzschean compact. It is ultimately, maybe, the beginnings of a very Right-wing modern view, but it is a modernist view. Take it or leave it.

The sort of viewpoint that Evola moved towards, and there was a progression in his early life and spiritual career and intellectual and writing career, is what we might call metaphysical objectivism. This is called in present day language foundationalism or fundamentalism in relation to religiosity. Fundamentalism, like the far Right, are the two areas of culture that can’t be assimilated in what exists out there in [unintelligible] Street. They’re the two things that are outside and that’s why they can never entirely be drawn in.

Now, metaphysical objectivism is the absolute belief in the supernatural, the absolute belief in other states of reality, the absolute belief in gods and goddesses, the absolute belief in one supreme power (monotheism as against polytheism, for example), the absolute belief that certain iterizations, certain forms of language and spiritual  culture exist outside man: truth, justice, the meaning of law, purposive or teleological information about how a life should be lived. Most people in Western societies now are so dumbed down and so degraded by almost every aspect of life that nearly any philosophical speculation about life is indeterminate and almost completely meaningless. It’s a channel which they never turn on.

 

Now, the type of metaphysical objectivism that Evola postulates as being an anchor for meaning in modern life can take many different forms. One of the great problems many Right-wing or re-foundational or primal movements or tribal movements or nationalistic movements of whatever character have is if there is a religion somewhere behind it–as there often is for many but not all of the key people involved in such movements and struggles–what form should that be? Everyone knows that culturally, and this is true of a formulation like GRECE or the New Right in France, as soon as you begin to get people of like-mind together they will split on whether they’re atheist or not, secularist or not, but they are also, on a deeper cultural level, split on whether they’re pagan influenced or Christian. Such divisions always bedevil Right-wing cultural and metapolitical groups.

The way that the Evolian Tradition looks at this is to engage in what is called perennialism. This is the inherent intellectual and ideological and theological idea that there are certain key truths in all of the major faiths. All of those faiths that have survived, that are recorded, that have come down to us, even their pale antecedents, even those dissident, deviant and would-be heretical elements of them that have been removed, in all of them can be seen a shard of the perspectival truth that these particular traditions could be said to manifest. Beneath this, of course, is the ethnic and racial idea that people in different groups within mankind as a body perceive reality differently, experience it differently, have different intellectual and linguistic responses to it, and form different cults, different myths, different religions because they are physically constituted in a manner that leads to such differentiation.

This can lead among certain perennialists to a sort of universalism at times, almost a neo-liberalism occasionally, where all cultures are of value, where all are “interesting,” where all are slightly interchangeable. But given that danger, the advantage for a deeply religious mind of the perennial tradition is to avoid the sectarianism and negative Puritanism which is inevitably part and parcel of building up large religious structures.

As always, a thinker like Evola proceeds from the individual and goes to the individual. This can give thinking of this sort a slightly unreal aspect for many people. Where are the masses? Where is the democratic majority? Where is the BBC vote that decides? The truth is Evola is not concerned with the BBC vote. He’s not concerned with the masses. He regards the masses, and the sort of theorists who go along with him regard the masses, as sacks of potatoes to be moved about. His thinking is completely anti-democratic, Machiavellian to a degree, and even manipulative of the masses as long as it’s down within an order of Tradition within which all have a part.

Evola dates the decline of modernity from, in a sense, the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance. But many thinkers of a similar sort date the slide at other times. Evola’s a Catholic and once asked about his religious particularism he said, “I’m a Catholic pagan,” which is a deeply truthful remark, dialectically. I am not a Christian, but if you look at it from the outside the core or ur part of Christianity is obviously Roman Catholicism, even though I was technically brought up in the Protestant sort of forcing house of Anglicanism. A wet sheet religion if ever there was one. But Anglicanism, of course, is a syncretic religion. It’s a politically created religion. A bit Catholic, a bit Protestant, but not too much, and with a liberal clerisy at the top that’s partly Protestant-oriented within it and exists to manage the thing.

One of the truthful, although this is en passant, asides that can be made about Anglicanism and the reason why it’s been supported even today through state establishmentarianism when virtually no one attends these churches at all except the odd old lady and immigrants from the Third World, is that it’s a way of damming up some of the extremism that does lurk in religion. Religion is a very dangerous formulation as the modern world is beginning to understand.

I remember Robin Cook, who was a minister who opposed the Iraq War and so on and died on a Scottish mountain, all that obsessive walking when one’s thin and redheaded can lead to undue coronaries, but Cook once said, and he’s a son of the manse like most of these Scottish politicians are, in other words, he comes from a Calvinist background to a degree, he said that in his early life he thought with the general Marxist and Freudian conundrum that religion was over. And now towards the end of his life, this is just before he died, he said, “the dark, clammy, icy hand of religiosity,” in all sorts of systems, “is rising again, and secular Leftists like us,” he’s speaking of himself and those who believe in his viewpoint, “are feeling the winds of this force coming from the side and from behind.” It’s a force that they don’t like.

I personally believe, as with Evola, that people are hardwired for faith. Maybe 1 in 10 have no need for it at all. But for most people it’s a requirement. The depth of the belief, the knowledge that goes into the belief, the system they come out of, is slightly incidental. But man needs emotional truths. George Bernard Shaw once said, “The one man with belief is worth 50 men who don’t have any” and it’s quite true that all of the leaders of great movements and those that imposed their will upon [unintelligible] inside and outside of particular countries have considerable and transcendent beliefs, philosophical, quasi-philosophical, religious, semi-religious, philosophical melded into religious and vice versa. Without the belief that there’s something above you and before you and beyond you and behind you that leads to that which is above you, we seem as a species content to slough down into the lowest common denominator, the lowest possible level.

Evola and those who think like him believe that this is the lowest age that mankind has ever experienced, despite its technological abundance, despite its extraordinary array of technological devices that even in an upper pub room in central west London you can see around you. It is also true, and this is one of the complications with these sorts of beliefs, that some of the methodologies that have led to this plasma screen behind me would actually be denied by elements of some of the religiosity that people like him would put forward, but that’s one of the conundrums about epistemology, about what you mean by meaning, which lurks in these types of theories.

The interesting thing about these beliefs is that they are primal. Turn on the television, turn on the radio, the World Cup is just about to begin. Everywhere there is trivia. Everywhere there is celebration of the majority. Everywhere there is celebration of the desire for us all to embrace and become one world, one world together. As someone recently said, “I don’t want to be English. I don’t want to be British. England’s a puddle,” he said. “I want to step out. I want to be a citizen of the world! I don’t want to have a race. I don’t want to have a kind. I don’t want to have a group . . . even a class! I don’t want to come from anywhere. I want to be on this planet! This planet is my home!” Well, my view is that sort of fake universality . . .  Maybe you should get him one of these dinky rockets and fire himself off into some other firmament, because this is the home that we have and know. And the only reason that we can define it as such is by virtue of the diversity of what exists upon it. But the number of people who wish to maintain that level of diversity and the pregnant meanings within it seem to get smaller and smaller with each generation.

The politicians that we have now are managers of a social system. It’s quite clear that we do not have three ruling parties, but one party with three wings, the nature of which are interchangeable in relation to gender, where you come from in the country, class, background, how you were educated, and whether you arrived in the country as a newcomer in the last 40 to 50 years or not.

Now, Evola’s step back from what has made the modern world leads to certain radical conclusions about it which are spiritually and politically aristocratic. Most people are only aware of the Left-Right split as it relates to a pre-immigration, slightly organic society where social class was the basis for political alignment. Bourgeois center Right: conservatism of some sort. Center Left: Labour, social-democratic, trade unionist, and so on. Now we have a racial intermingling which complicates even that division. The distinction between the aristocratic and upper class attitude and the bourgeois attitude, which is as pronounced as any Left-Right split between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is that which Evola advocates.

Evola believes, in some respects, in masters and slaves, or certainly serfs. He believes that the merchant and those who deal purely with economics have to be subordinated to politics, to higher politics, to metapolitics, to military struggle. He believes that the warrior and the religious leader and the farmer and the intellectual/scholar/craftsman/artist are uniquely superior to those that make money, and nearly all of Evola’s views are in some way a form of aristocraticism.

If you look at all of the sports that he favors–fencing, mountaineering–they all involve lone individuals who prepare themselves for a task which is usually dangerous and which can usually result–mountaineering for example and his book Meditations on the Peaks–in annihilation, if you go wrong, but creates an extraordinary and ecstatic sense of self-overbecoming if you conquer K2, the Peruvian mountains, the Eiger, Mount Everest and so on. Even in the more populist forms of mountaineering, the sort of beard and upper middle class Chris Bonington cheery mountaineering as you might call it, there is a streak of aristocratic, devil may care and Byronic license. The bourgeois view is, “Why do that!? It’s dangerous. It’s pitiless. You could be hurt and injured! There’s no profit. It serves no higher reason than itself.” For Evola, the reason and the purpose is the reason to do it. It is the stages that you go through and the mental states you get into as you prepare and you execute a task which is dangerous and the same analogy can be extended to martial combat, the same analogy can be extended to sports like ancient wrestling.

Modern wrestling is a circus, of course, where the outcome is largely decided by the middlemen who negotiate the bouts between clowns, who can still damage each other very severely. But ancient wrestling was a bout that ended very quickly and was essentially religious, which is why the area that they wrestled in was purified with salt in most of the major traditions.

Fencing: Take away the protective gloves and gear and you have gladiatorial combat between people who are virtually on the brink of life and death. It’s only one step removed from Olympic fencing. Notice that in the contemporary Olympics, a movement that was founded in modernity on the Grecian ideal, nearly always founded by aristocrats, all of the early victors in shooting and fencing and all these early sports are aristocrats. Of course, the early Olympics have their funny side. Many of the female athletes that won the early Olympics were transsexuals. Of course, medical checks were instituted to prevent hermaphrodites and people of diverse genders and that sort of thing from competing in these competitions. But the individualistic sports in a mass age have been disprivileged and are largely regarded as strange wonderland sports that the masses only flip channels over in relation to the Olympics.

For a man like Evola and for the sensibility which he represents, things like sport are not a diversion. They are targets for initiation in relation to processes of understanding about self, the other, and life that transcend the moment. So, one bout leads to another, leads to another moment of skill. It is as if these moments, which most people always try to avoid rather than engage upon, are in slow motion. The whole point of Evola’s attitude toward these and other matters is to go beyond that which exists in a manner which is upwards and transcendent in its portending direction.

This is a society which always looks downwards. “What will other people think? What will one’s neighbors think? What will people out there think? What will all this BBC audience think? What do the masses, Left, Right, Center, pressing their buttons on panels and consoles think?” The sort of Evolian response is what they think is of no importance and they ought to think what the aristocrats of the world, in accordance with the traditions, which are largely religious, out of which their social order comes, think. You can understand that this is an attitude which is not endeared, this type of thinking, to contemporary pundits and to the world as it now is.

It’s also inevitable that when Evola’s books were published they would enter the English-speaking world via the occult, via mysticism, via various types of initiated and individualistic religiosity. The whole point about the Western occult, whether one believes in the literal formulation that these people spout or whether one believes in it metaphorically and quasi-subjectively, is that it’s an individualistic form of religiosity. In simple terms, mass religion involves a small clerisy or priesthood in the old Catholic sense up there and the laity are down there and it’s in Medieval Latin, it’s slightly mysterious, you partly understand it if you’re grammar school educated, otherwise you don’t, it’s mysterious and semi-initiated, but you don’t really know, the mystery is part of the wonder of the thing, you look up at them and they’ve got their backs to you, and they’re looking up further beyond them towards the divine as they perceive it. Now, that’s a traditional form of mass religiosity, if you like.

But the type of religiosity with which he was concerned was individualistic and voltaic. It was essentially the idea that everyone in a small group is a priest. Sometimes there’s a priest and a warrior combined. One of the many scandals that we have in modernity is crimes that are committed by members of various religious groups and organizations. Many Traditionalist minded people believe that the reporting of these crimes in the mass media is deliberately exaggerated in order to demonize any retrospectively traditional elements of a prior and metaphysically conservative type in the society.

But if one looks at it another way–and one of the things about Evola is the creativeness of the aristocratic mind that looks at essentially Centrist and bourgeois problems in a completely different perspective–he would say about those sorts of scandals, which I won’t belabor people with because everyone knows about them, that it’s the absence of the dialectic between the priest, somebody who believes in something, somebody who believes in a philosophy that isn’t just theirs and therefore relates to a society and relates to a continuing generic tradition out of which they come . . . Most contemporary philosophers are “just my view.” “Just my view as a tiny little atom.” Rather than my view as something that’s concentric and links me to something larger and that therefore can be socially efficacious. But from an Evolian perspective, the absence of the warrior or the martial and soldierly traditions and its interconnection with belief and the individual who believes is the reason for decadence or deconstruction or devilment or decay in these religious organizations. In his way of looking at things, there’s a seamlessness between the poet-artist, the warrior, and the religious believer. They are different formulations of the same sort of thing, because they are always looking upwards and, in a way, are deeply individualistic and egotistical but transcend that, because the concentration on one’s self or one’s own thinking, one’s own feeling, one’s own concerns, one’s own attitude towards this mountain, this woman, this fight, this text is conditioned by that which you come out of and move towards.

Evola doesn’t believe in progress nor does the Tradition that he comes out of. They don’t believe in scientific progress. They don’t believe in evolution. But his anti-evolutionism is strange and interesting. It’s got nothing to do with creationism and, if you like, the Evangelical politics of certain parts of what you might call the Puritan American Right, for example. His attitude is a reverse attitude, which in a strange way is an involuntary and inegalitarian way of looking at the same issue. His view is that the apes are descended from us as we go upwards rather than we are descended from them as we leave them in their simian animalism. So, in a way, it’s actually a reformulation of the same idea but looking upwards and always seeing, if you like, the snobbish, the aristocratic, the prevailing, the over-arching view rather than viewing the thing from a mass, generic, and middling perspective which includes people.

Tony Blair says the worst vice anyone can have is to be intolerant. It’s to be exclusive. It’s to exclude people. “The nature of Britishness is inclusion,” when, of course, the nature of any group identity is exclusion, and who is on the boundary and who can be allowed in and the subtleties and grains of difference that exist between one excluded group and another, where one tendency of man ends and another begins. Evola believes, in a very controversial way, that decline is morphic and spiritual combined. In other words, races of man have a spiritual dimension, have a higher emotional dimension, have a psychological dimension, but never forget that Evola is not a Nietzschean. He is not somebody who believes that it’s all at this level. He believes that the gods speak to man directly and indirectly and the civilizations that we come out of are based essentially on religious premises.

Moderns who sneer at these sorts of attitudes, of course, forget that virtually every civilization that mankind has ever had until relatively recently, and in every civilization there are documents and artifacts which are included in the storehouse of the British Museum just over there in central London, was religiously and theologically based. It’s only really in a post-Enlightenment, Scottish Enlightenment, English Enlightenment, French Enlightenment, 18th century plus sort of a way that the secularization of Western Europe rivals the rest of the planet. Further east in Europe, less of it. Further south in Europe, a bit less of it. Religiosity on most of the other continents of the Earth is still a primary force, but Evola would despise the sort of religiosity that prevails there because he would see in it broken down thinking, syncretism, the people who would say he would be in favor of contemporary Saudi Arabia, for example, would probably be sorely disappointed. He would see under the religious police, under the strict observance of this or that rule, American satellite dishes and modern devices and that which is external, in relation to modernity, and which is being internally accepted. So, Evola was always the critic, if you like, and always on the outside.

Now, his career is quite complicated because when he was a very young man he fought in the First World War on the Italian side. They, of course, fought on the “Western” or Allied side in that war as is often forgotten. There are some extraordinary photos of him on the internet in these goggles and these helmets looking like extraordinarily fascistic, and that movement hadn’t even really been created then. He looks like that in a D’Annunzian-type way, stylistically, even before the gesture itself.

Evola, of course, partly disapproved of Fascism and National Socialism even though he became very heavily implicated and/or involved in both of them, because in his view they weren’t Right-wing enough! They weren’t traditional enough. They weren’t organic enough. They weren’t extreme enough. Evola is probably the only thinker in the 20th century whose written a slim volume criticizing National Socialism from the Right not from any point to the Left. He only aligned with these movements because they forced modernity to question itself and because they were anti-democratic and because they were ferocious and desired morally and semi-theologically–because few, including liberal critics, would deny that there was a semi-theological insistence to most of the radical European movements, even of the Left but certainly of the Right, in the first half of the last century. Evola saw in these movements a chance but no more, which is why he flirted with them, why he wrote a fascist magazine in Italy, why he went to colleges run by Himmler’s SS in Germany, why he was disapproved of by them, why he had sympathizers in the Ernst Jünger-like in the party who protected him, why he was allowed to write with a degree of freedom whilst giving a degree of loyalist obeisance to these structures and yet, at the same time, to remain outside them. The question has to be raised whether Evola’s philosophy is consonant with the creation of a society or whether it will become, if you like, a spirited individualism.

Evola was also involved in the beginning of his career in one of the most radical modernist movements of the 20th century: Dadaism in Italy. He produced Dadaist paintings. Now, this, superficially, looks quite extraordinary. But of course there was a strong interconnection between certain early modernisms and fascistic ideologies. The reason that he became involved in Dadaism is quite interesting, and, of all things, there is a talk on YouTube that lasts four-and-a-half minutes in which Evola is an old man explicating why he was involved. He says the reason we got involved in these movements was to attack the bourgeoisie, was to attack the middle class, and was to attack middle class sensibility and sentimentality. The extraordinary radical anti-system nature of many radical Right ideas, which is hidden in more moderate and populist variants, comes out staring at you full in the face in people like Evola. Many fascistic and radical movements of the Right, of course, were peopled by adventurers and outsiders and quasi-artists and demi-criminals and religious mystics and madmen and people who were outside of the grain of mainstream life, particularly people who were socialized by the Great War, which many of them experienced as a revolution.

Wyndham Lewis who was strongly drawn aesthetically to modernism and politically to various forms of fascism and was a personal friend of Sir Oswald Moseley once said that for us, the First War was a revolution, wasn’t a war. We saw killing on a truly industrial scale. We saw the industrialization of slaughter.

One of the interesting ironies of the Evolian, and in some ways Ernst Jünger’s, position about war is that, although thinkers like them are regarded by pacifists and liberal humanists and feminists, as warmongers, there is a distaste for mass war in Jünger and Evola and the others, because it’s the war of the ants, the war of the masses in blood and dung and soil and gore. There is nothing chivalric about a man being torn to pieces by a helicopter gunship when he doesn’t even have a chance to get his Armalite into the air.

Evola would prefer the doctrine of the champion. You know, when two Medieval armies meet, and one enormous, hulking man comes out of one army, in full regalia trained in martial splendor and arts as a previous speaker discussed in relation to the Norse tradition, and another champion emerges and they fight for a limited objective that leaves civilization intact on either side. But the one that is defeated will obviously pay dues to the other.

Now, this shows the extremely Byronic, individualistic, and aristocratic spirit that lurks in Evola’s formulations. The way that his works have come down to us, of course, is the way that he lived his life and the books that he wrote. It’s interesting that the Anglo-Saxon world has received his literature through translations by mystic and occultistic publishers in the United States: about tantra, about Buddhism, about Japanese warrior castes and traditions, about the Holy Grail, about Greco-Roman, High Christian, pagan, and post-pagan Europeanist and other traditions.

Another radicalism about Evola is his total unstuffiness and absence of prudery in dealings with sex. Evola wrote a book called Metaphysics of Sex. He regards sexuality as a primal biological instantiation through which the races of man are renewed and replaced. But at the same time he regarded it as one of the primary human acts of great energy and force that has to be channeled, has to be made use of, has to be transcended in and of itself. You have this odd commitment to tantra, which is a sort of erotic extremism of occultic sex, and a total opposition to pornography. Why? Because the one involves commercialization of sex, the one involves money interrelated with sexuality. From this purely primal perspective, unless a marriage is arranged between dynastic states or groups for particular statal purposes, which is fine, money has almost nothing to do with these areas of life.

 

The disprivileging of money as the basis of everything and the belief that the society that we have now is the result of the fact that every politician in all of the parties represented in the major assemblies, including radical Right parties essentially of a populist hue actually, believe in Homo economicus. They believe that man is an economic integer and nothing else matters. Immigration? It’s good for the economy, don’t you know? Mass movements of capital around the world at the flick of a button on a screen in exchanges all around the globe, particularly in the Far East now but also ubiquitously? It’s good for the economy! Everything is based upon the freeing of people from prior forms of alleged servitude due to economic enhancement. The sort of doctrines Evola holds are not neo-Medieval, nor are they a desire for a return to the ancient world with certain modern technologies. In some ways, they are a return to the verities that existed before the modern world was created.

One of the most substantial critiques of this type of thinking is the belief that the modern world is inevitable, that all cultures and races will modernize and are doing so at a great rate of knots, that skyscrapers and enormous megalopolic cities are being thrust up in the Andes and the Far East and even client Chinese-built ones will emerge in Africa and elsewhere and that it would be onwards and upwards forever in relation to what we have now. There are grotesque problems with that, of course, because to give every human on this planet irrespective of race, kinship, clime, and culture a middle American lifestyle you will need 3 planets, 8 planets, 10 planets, or you may need them, in order to give them that middle American feeling. The three satellite dishes, the condominium, the three Chelsea tractors outside in the driveway, the multiple channel TV, and so on. To give every African that we will need many, many planets and many, many times the economic wherewithal that we have even at the moment.

The interesting thing about Evola is that many issues that convulse people today–famine in the Third World, war in the Congo, HIV/AIDS–he would say they’re interesting, of course, because they’re things that are going on, and everything has a meaning even beyond itself. But ultimately they’re unimportant. The number of humans on the Earth doesn’t matter to his type of thinking. Pain and suffering do not matter in accordance with his type of thinking. Indeed, he welcomes them as part of the plenitude of life, because life begins in pain and ends in pain and most people live their entire lives in denial of the fact that life is circular as his philosophical tradition believes the world is and meaning is. There is progression around the circle, but there is decline, and decline and death are part of an endless process of will and becoming.

It is essentially and in a very cardinal way a religious view of life, but also a metaphysically pessimistic and conservative view of life in a profound way that the conservatism of contemporary liberal Tories like Cameron would not even begin to understand. To a man like him, theories of Evola’s sort are lunacy, quite literally, the return to the Dark Ages, the return to the Middle Ages, quasi-justifications of slavery, quasi-justifications of the Waffen SS. This is what Cameron or his colleagues on the front bench and his even more liberal colleagues on the same front bench would say about these sorts of ideas.

But the irony is that 300 to 400 years ago, most civilized structures on Earth were based on these ideas. Even the modern ones that replaced them are based upon the contravention of these sorts of ideas, which means that they realized they were real enough to rebel against in the first instance. It’s also true that even in the high point of modernity, post-modernity, hypermodern reality, all the phrases that are used, when a war occurs, when the planes go into the towers in New York, when the helicopter gunships stream over Arabian sands, you suddenly see a slippage in the liberal verities and in the materialism and in some of the ideas which are used to justify these sorts of things. Not much of a slippage, but you suddenly see a slippage, what occultists and mystics call a “rending of the veil,” a ripping of the veil of illusion between life and death.

What is life really about? Is life really about shopping? Is life really about making more and more money? Is life really about bourgeois status when one already has enough to live on? Is life really about eating yourself to death? These are the sorts of things that Evola’s viewpoint pushes before people, which is why the majority will always push it away.

His political texts are essentially Revolt Against the Modern World, Men Among the Ruins, and Ride the Tiger, which explore the nature of a man who is born now when most of the prior traditions of his culture and his civilization have collapsed.  The decivilization of man, the fact that Western cities have turned into Third World zones, the fact that semi-criminality is endemic, the fact that when you go into a street graffiti is there, rap music blares from a passing car, 20%, 40% of the street has no relationship to you aesthetically or ethnically or racially or culturally. Evola would see this as part of the inevitable climate of decline and spiraling downwards towards matter, which is intentional and volitional.

The most controversial area of Evola is when he begins to unpick and reformulate many classic propositionalisms of what might be called the “Old Right” to determine what has occurred and why. Evola is essentially, although he began in a more subjectivist and changeable mood, a deeply religious and aristocratic man. This means there is always a reason. Liberals believe that everything is a confusion and everything is contingent upon itself and everything is an accident waiting to happen. But like Christ in the New Testament, who believes that when two birds fall to the ground the father is aware, Evola believes that there is always a purpose and a reason. Evola believes that civilizations are collapsing in on themselves and tearing themselves apart internally for reasons that are pushed by elites and by forces which are manifest within them that will that desire. The endless atoms and causal moments in the chains may not know of that which is coming, that which is non-volitional, that which is partly pre-programmed. He believes that these tendencies of mass servitude, mass death, mass proletarianization spiritually, mass plebeianism, mass social welfare, mass social democracy are willed, that the destructivity of prior cultural orders is willed and definite, and certain racial groups are used to facilitate that destruction, and that other groups use them in order to achieve it.

He believes in an aristocracy of man, because he believes everything is hierarchical. There was an interesting moment in a by-election in East London or eastern London just recently when the chairman of the party that I used to be in a while ago was asked by a woman of Afro-Caribbean ancestry, “Are we equal with you?” The media’s there, you know. Twenty cameras are upon this individual, and, therefore, given the logic and the paradigm that he is in he said, “Yes.” He would probably want to say, “Yes, but . . . ,” but the media has gone on because it’s got the required answer. Indeed, lots of media investigation now is asking a politician to affirm their correctness before a prior methodological statement, and woe betide any of them if they show the slightest backsliding on any issue about which they should be progressive.

Who can put words in the mouth of somebody who died a while back, but Evola’s answer, the answer of his type of thinking, would be that that woman is unequal in relation to a black writer like Wole Soyinka, who is a Nigerian from the Yoruba tribe and won the Nobel Prize. Is he worthy of winning the Nobel Prize? Was he given the prize in the 1990s because it was fashionable to do? Rabindranath Tagore, the great Indian writer and Brahmin and higher caste type, won it in 1913. Probably wasn’t too much political correctness then, but there was probably a bit even then. The Evolian answer is that she is not equal in relation Soyinka, and Soyinka is not equal in relation to Chaucer or Defoe or Shakespeare or Voltaire or Dante or Tolstoy or Dostoevsky or Wagner, that everything is unequal and that everything is hierarchical and that there is a hierarchy within an individual and between individuals and between groups of individuals, because everything is looking upwards and everything has a different purpose in life.

This means that those who are at the middle and the bottom of an ethnicity, of a social order, of a gender, of a prior historical dispensation should not be lonely, in his way of looking at things, or afraid or rebellious or full of alienation and fear. Because everyone has a role within a hierarchy and people can move to a degree although his viewpoint is essentially aristocratic and not meritocratic. A man like Nietzsche, who Bertrand Russell once condemned as advocating an aristocracy when he was not born in it or anywhere near it, would be accepted, but never completely accepted by an aristocratic caste. Things that are regarded as hopelessly naïve and snobbish now, Evola regards as just due form.

What is the worst thing in the world at the present time according to Sky News? Probably discrimination. Discrimination of one sort or another. Evola would believe that discrimination is the taxonomy of an aristocratic sensibility. One reaches for a piece of cake, one discriminates. One has an arranged marriage with another member of the Sicilian nobility, one discriminates. One reaches for a sword to do down a bounder that one wishes to beat with the flat of the blade, one discriminates between the weapon and the object of the rage, which is itself indifferent because it sees something beyond even itself. These are views, of course, that the majority of people will find cold, chilling, brutal, [unintelligible] beyond their conception. Almost forms of insanity in actual fact in relation to what is today regarded as normal or moral or even human. They are partly inhuman ideas, in some ways, but they are ideas that most aristocracies and most warrior castes have had for most forms of human history.

Evola’s books are now widely available to those who wish to read them. The great conundrum of his work is, does it portend to an asceticism? In other words, if the era of destruction, which is the Kali Yuga on the ideology which he puts forward, which is the Hindu age of destruction where everything is broken and everything is melded together prior to decomposition which will feed a universal rebirth at a future time, because mankind is seasonal in relation to Spengler’s view of the world where his view of history is compared to plants and botany to give it some sort of methodology, some sort of structure.

Don’t forget, these are 19th century and early 20th century ideas. No history don, or hardly any history don, today believes history has a meaning. Carlyle believed that the sort of deistic nature of history impinged upon the decadence of the French royalist elite and it led to the revolution because they didn’t superintend France properly. He sort of believed in his Protestant, thundering way from the pulpit of his study in the mid-19th century that the French Revolution was an outcome that was partly deserved by a failing aristocracy. In other words, history had a meaning.

It had a purpose. Nobody believes history has a meaning or a purpose. Certain anti-fascists would say Stalingrad had a purpose, but they forget that the Red Army shot 16-18,000 of their own men, and the Commissars stood 18 feet behind the lines. They shot an army of their own men in order to win that battle, just as secret police in the Third World cut off the ears and cut out the tongues of any who retreat in battle before they send them back to their villages.

Would Evola approve of that? He would probably say that if it was done individualistically or as a matter of revenge or of rage it’s dependent upon the circumstances, but to do it in a mass-oriented way–mass camps, mass sirens, the totalitarian response particularly of communism, the reduction of everything to the lowest common denominator so all can be free in a sort of pig-like uniformity–he would consider that really to be death and to be fought against.

Evola is extraordinarily controversial because there is an area in his thinking, particularly in relation to the Islamic world, that leads almost to the justification, as certain liberal critics say, of forms of religious terrorism. He never quite advocates that, but it’s quite clear that his loathing of the modern world is so much and his nuanced appreciation of the Islamic concept of Jihad–where you fight within yourself against doubt and fight externally in a quasi-pagan and masculine way against the enemy that is without you–has a resonance that chimes with certain extremist religious people who basically want to blow the modern world up.

So, Evola is, as I say in my title, one of the world’s most Right-wing, certainly most elitist, thinkers. The interesting thing about him is that everything always looks upwards, even his doctrine of race.

You find in many racialistic movements a sort of socialism. That if you are of my ethnicity you are “all right,” as if possession of a certain melanin skin content or absence of same is all that the thing was about. When Norman Tebbit says that the British National Party is old Labour plus allied racialism, there is always a streak of truth to such viewpoints. Evola doesn’t believe in that.

Evola believes that race is spiritual as well as physical. If a man comes to you and says, “Oh, I’m White! You should be looking after me, mate!” he would say what is your intellect, what is your quality, what is your moral sense, what do you know about your civilization, how far are you prepared to fight for it, what pain can you endure, have you had understanding of death in your family and in life, are you a mature and profound human being or are you part of the limitless universality although you were born in a particular group which I respect and come from myself.? That’s the sort of principle that he would have.

Now, that is an attitude of revolutionary snobbery in a way, but it’s snobbery based upon ideas of character. And in the end as we know, politically, character is a fundamentally important thing. And the absence of it, particularly in quasi-authoritarian movements is poisonous because people once in place cannot be removed except by the most radical of means. So, there is a degree to which leadership is all important.

Look at an army. An army is not a gang of thugs. But it can easily become one. An army can easily become a rabble, but armies are controlled by hierarchies of force, the nature of which is partly impalpable. Each squad has a natural leader. Each squad has its non-commissioned officer. Each squad has an officer above them. In real armies, German, British armies of the past, if one officer goes down somebody replaces them from lower down, assumes immediately the responsibility that goes with that role. Even if all the officers are gone and all non-commissioned officers, the natural leader, one of the 5%–most behavioral anthropologists believe that 1 in 20 of all people have leadership critera–can step forward in a moment of crisis and are looked to by the others, because they provide meaning and order and hierarchy in a moment of stress.

Have you ever noticed that when people undergo disaster or when they’re in difficulties they look for help, but they also look for people to lead them out of it? Leaders are never liked, because it’s sort of lonely at the top, but leadership is probably like the desire to believe in something beyond yourself. It’s inborn. And while the principle of leadership remains, where in even democratic societies leaders are required in order to energize the democratic masses . . .

Don’t forget, most of the Caesarisms of modernity are Red forms of Caesarism, forms of extreme authoritarianism and even pitilessness all in the name of the people. All raised in the name of the masses and their glory and their freedom, their liberty and their equality. When Forbes magazine says that the Castro family’s wealth in communist Cuba is $70 million US dollars, when it calls them communist princes . . . Don’t forget, an ordinary man in Cuba could be in prison for owning his own plumbing business. When you realize that these people are princelings of reversal, you sense that some of the hierarchies, although they wear different names and different forms, are occurring in an entropic phase or in a culture of decay do relate to many of Evola’s ideas even in reversal. He would say this is because these ideas are eternal and are perennial and will out in the end.

The traditional political Right-wing criticism of these sorts of ideas is that they are purely philosophical, they relate to individuals and their lives, they tend to Hermeticism and the ascetic view that a learned spiritual man, a man of some substance, can go off and live by himself and the rest can rot down to nothing and who cares. They say that they feed a sort of post-aristocratic misanthropy.

Look at our own aristocracy. They probably lost power in about 1912. They were never shot like in the Soviet Union, they were never beheaded like in revolutionary France of 200 years before. But they have lost everything in a way because their function has been taken from them, hasn’t it? The reason for those schools, the reason they were bred in the first place, the reason for all their privileges and so on has been taken away. The fascination with the Lord Lucan case in the ’70s, the sort of decline of that class. He listens to Hitler’s speeches at Oxford, beats the nanny to death, not even get the right woman in the basement. This sort of thing. Can’t even get that right! Couldn’t even get the crime right! It’s the decline of a class, isn’t it? Going down, and knowing they’ve gone down as well. It’s sort of Oswald Moseley’s son enjoys being dressed up as a woman and spanked and his son has just died of a heroin overdose. And yet Oswald Moseley is in that family chain. You don’t really need to think that there is a sort of efflorescence there. It’s a bit unfair on that family and so on.

But don’t forget, this was a class that was born to pitilessness and rule. This was a class that identified with eagles. That’s why they put them on their shields and on their ties and on their schools. And now look at them.

 

But, of course, they have in a sense joined the rest, haven’t they? They’ve joined the mass. And what they once were no longer matters. Cameron sums it up in a strange sort of way. Traditionally, since the 1960s, the Tories have always elected pushy middle class people with which the mass of their electoral support can identify.

It was always said Douglas-Home would be the last of the old breed. He was premier when I was born. He would be the last of the old breed that would survive and thrive. When asked about unemployment in 1961, Douglas-Home said, “There’s room for a second gamekeeper on my estate.” And people said he was out of touch. Out of touch! And he was out of touch! Let’s face it. But he thought that was a quite commodious and moral answer, you see.

Cameron is strange because all of the ease–the ease before the camera, the ease before people, no notes, look at me, not a trembling lip–all of that ease is part of the genetics of what he partly comes out of. And yet all of his values are bourgeois. All of his values are middling and mercantile. All of his values are this society’s as it now is.

Would Douglas-Home have joined or even given money to United Against Fascism, who he would have regarded as smelly little people on the margins of society who were a Left-wing rabble who probably needed to be beating the grass somewhere? Or in my regiment. You see what I mean? The idea that he would identify with these people because the real enemy represents the seeds of the aristocracy from which one has fled, that wouldn’t occur to him. He was too much what he was, basically, as a form to really consider these lies and this legerdemain and this flight of fancy.

One comes to the most controversial area of Evola’s entire prognosis, and this is the belief that Jewishness is responsible for decline and that they are a distant and another race that pushes upon things and causes things to fall and be destroyed. These are the views, of course, the belief that there is a morphic element in the nature of the decline, that has made him so untouchable and controversial. The interesting thing is that when he was approached about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is believed by all liberal humanist scholars to be a forgery of the Okhrana secret police based upon an alleged French novel, I think in the 19th century, Evola said, I’m not concerned whether it’s a forgery or not, which is a very interesting response.

Because in Evola’s occultistic and Hermetic view of the world you can indicate something through its reversal, you can indicate something through metaphorization, something can be emotionally true and not completely factually true, a text can be used to exemplify truths deeper than its own surface. This is a religious view of the text, of course, that the text does not end with itself. It’s a Medieval view and is based upon a science of linguistic study called hermeneutics where you would look at every word, you would look at every paragraph, you would look at every piece of syntax to deconstruct for essence rather than deconstruct to find the absence of essence.

In the Western world, if you go to university now and you do any humanities, any arts, any liberal arts, or any social science course you will come across an ideology called deconstruction. Even vaguely, the semi-educated have heard of it. This is a viewpoint that says that any essentialisms (race, class isn’t an essentialism, but it begins to become one in the minds of man, belief in God, gender and so on) lead to the gates of Auschwitz. This is what deconstruction is based on as a theory. Therefore you look at every text, you look at every film, because they’re obsessed with mass culture, you see, looking at what the masses look at and what they’re fed by the capitalist cultural machine. They look at this and say, oh look, dangerous essentialism there. Did you see in that John Wayne film? Did you see the way he spoke to the Red Indian? Sorry, Native American. You see that sort of thing. You look at these things and you break them down and you break them down again and you break down the element of sort of “David Duke” logic that could be said to lie in that particular phrasing and so on.

But the sort of analysis that Evola maintains is what you might call constructionism rather than deconstructionism. And that’s building upon the essences of things and bringing out their discriminatory differences. So, to him the fact that that text may have been put into circulation by the Okhrana, the czarist secret police, as a profound Hermetic, metaphoricization for courses of history which may or may not be occurring, is worthy of study. He again returns to the idea that everything has meaning.

If you want war with the Islamic world, the towers will fall. If you a pacifist and isolationist America to enter the Great War, a particular boat with civilians onboard but weapons underneath, will be torpedoed by the Germans. If you want to get the isolationist boobs of middle America into a global struggle in the early 1940s you allow the prospect of an attack that you know is going to happen to it there and you make sure your aircraft carriers are not there and you blame the middling officers who were there for their incompetence retrospectively because it is the moment to kick start democratic engagement with heroic and Spartan activities.

Who can doubt that there is a streak of the Spartan? When an American Marine goes up a beach on Iwo Jima or when he fights in Fallujah? Some of the modern world has certainly fallen away for that man as he faces oblivion in warriorship against the other, even within the modern. People like Evola and Jünger would realize that. There’s even at times, in the extremity of modern warfare, a return to the individual. What about these American pilots and these other pilots, these Russian pilots, who fly in these planes, and the warrior is part of the plane. You know, they have a computer in their visor and they have all sorts of statistics coming up before them. It’s like a man who is an army fighting on his own, isn’t it? He’s got an amount of force under his wings which is equivalent to an army of centuries ago. So, you have a return to elite individuals trained only for killing and warriorship at the top tier of present Western advanced military metaphysics.

The interesting thing about Evola’s way of thinking is it’s creative. Most Right-wing people are pessimistic introverts who don’t like the world they were born into, but Evola seems to be to me in some ways an extravagant, optimistic aristocrat who always sees, not the best side of everything, but the most heroic side of everything that goes beyond even itself. Even if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in accordance with his diction, was a lie and can be proved to be such, the fact that millions were motivated to believe in it, millions to reject its causation, that people fought out the consequences and the consequences of the consequences in relation to even some of those ideas, means that it is of great specificity and import.

 

Nietzsche has the idea that a man stands on the edge of a pond, and he skims a pebble into the pond, and it skips across the water. You know when you get it skimming right and it goes and it goes and it goes and wave upon wave moves upon the surface, and you can’t predict the formulation of the wave and the current that it leads into. And that History has unknown consequences.

The Maoist general who was asked by an American sympathizer after the Maoist Long March, itself partly mythological, “What’s your view of the French Revolution?” And he memorably replied, “It’s too early to tell.” Because it’s only two 200 years back. That is the sort of perspective that Evola has.

Although there will be crushing defeats, and men of his sort, aristocrats, for whom the modern world has no time, play polo, waste your money, go to brothels, gamble all the time. There’s no role for you. The world is ruled by machines and money and committees and Barack Obama.

You know, American Rightists call Obama “Obamination” instead of abomination. Is he the signification for everything that is declining in America and isn’t all of these middle class tax revolt type movements which are 100% grassroots American really within the allowed channels of opposition? “He’s a socialist!” “It’s all about tax. It’s not about anything else.” “It’s all within the remit of health care budgetary constraints and views on same.” Etc, etc. “What about the deficit?” Aren’t all of these movements and the rage that they contain elements and spectrums of what he would call anti-modernity or semi-anti-modernity within modernity?

None of us know what the future will hold, but it is quite clear that unless people of advanced type in our group believe in some of the traditions that they come out of again, they will disappear. And in Evola’s view they will have deserved to disappear. So, my view is that whatever one’s view, whatever one’s system of faith . . . and don’t forget that in the Greek world you could disbelieve in the gods and think they were metaphors, you could kneel before a statue of them or you could have a philosophical belief in between the two and all were part of the same culture, all were part of the same city-state, and if called upon as a free citizens to defend it, even Socrates would stand in line with his shield and his spear.

All of Evola’s books are now available on the internet. The most controversial passages about morphology and ethnicity are all available on the internet. Read Julius Evola. Read an aristocrat for the past and the future, and look back to the perennial Traditions that are part and parcel of Western civilization and can fuel the imagination and fire even in those who don’t entirely believe in them.

Thank you very much!

 

 

---

 

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

 

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/julius-evolathe-worlds-most-right-wing-thinker/

 

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evola_la_genitrice_painting.jpg

[2] here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs

[3] [e-mail]: mailto:[e-mail]

 

Julius Evola e la donna crudele

Julius Evola e la donna crudele

Ex: http://romeocastiglione.wordpress.com

Si annida il mistero tra le impalcature dell’imponente opera evoliana Metafisica del sesso. Nei capitoli ammalianti è celato un particolare erotismo evocativo; le tematiche affrontate nel volume brillano di un’immortale e remota luce. L’archetipo femminile è denso di sacralità e spiritualità arcana. La donna è inquadrata in un’ottica tradizionale, ancestrale: è sospesa nella perenne immutabilità ed è legata in modo preponderante alla terra, alla luna, ai ritmi ciclici del mondo. È un libro spiazzante, intrigante, coinvolgente. Le righe si sovrappongono nell’immaginario. Julius Evola esalta l’aspetto segreto della femmina, il lato nero, demoniaco. Secondo l’autore la donna riesce a far coesistere dentro di sé la disposizione alla pietà e quella alla crudeltà. In virtù di ciò egli rielabora alcune convinzioni di Lombroso e Ferreno. Particolarmente pone all’attenzione un prototipo di femmina violenta e spietata; tale modello si esalta nelle rivoluzioni e nei linciaggi. L’autore argomenta le supposizioni e riporta i passaggi più improntati del volume lombrosiano La donna delinquente. Credo che sia di ausilio il lungometraggio Malena: le donne del paese si accaniscono con perfida violenza sulla bellissima protagonista del film. La sfigurano pubblicamente. È un atto di giustizia sommaria. Malena abbatte i tabù. Di conseguenza provoca un’invidia assurda. È l’altra faccia della medaglia; rappresenta l’evasione. E deve essere distrutta.

Le donne crudeli di Tornatore sono simili alla perfida Emma Smael del lungometraggio Johnny Guitar di Nicholas Ray. Come il fuoco Emma Smael avvampa la nuda pelle. Ella sprigiona nell’atmosfera un aroma tragico intriso di dolore; ha un carisma esasperato, uno charme lugubre e impersonale. Porta i segni della rabbia oscura e antisolare. È vestita di nero, non cura il suo corpo. All’apparenza è un essere insignificante e indesiderabile. Ma sotto la scorza alberga un’anima inquieta, crudele, mesta. Luccica di cattiva luce quest’antieroina lunare. Emma fomenta il popolo, aizza le masse. Combatte la crociato contro i diversi, i forestieri, i fuorilegge. È puritana: disprezza le tentazioni dei sensi. Nello stesso tempo desidera ardentemente il bandito Ballerino Kid. Nel suo corpo si affrontano gli istinti contrastanti. Questa donna vorrebbe addirittura uccidere la sua segreta passione per far allontanare i bollenti spiriti. «Desideri Kid, ti vergogni e vorresti vederlo impiccato». Ribecca così Vienna, la nemica acerrima, la rivale assoluta.

Evola tenta di mettere insieme come un puzzle i richiami evocativi. In modo particolare è dedicato alla crudeltà della donna un intero capitolo. Così denocciola una carrellata di aneddoti storici: si sovrappongono le saghe della Tradizione. I persiani intravidero nell’universo femminile una particolare dualità. Fuoco e neve, durezze e dolcezza formano la donna. Ebbene sorge un collegamento tra crudeltà e sessualità: il tipo della baccante e della mènade è un esempio lampante. Nelle pieghe affiora un prototipo femminile afroditico ambiguo. La Dolores di Swinburne, la cosiddetta Nostra signora dello Spasimo è il vessillo del peccato, del piacere, della perdizione, della crudeltà latente. E il filosofo coglie alcune sottili sfumature. Ridisegna l’eroina Mimi della Boheme di Murger in un modo diverso; in sostanza inquadra la ragazza in una dimensione perfino “brutale e selvaggia”.

Ebbene il fascino muliebre è associato alla magia e alla stregoneria. Circe, Calipso e Brunhilde rappresentano l’esasperazione, l’estremizzazione, l’attrazione malefica. Tale tipologia di donna attrae l’uomo come una calamita famelica; la fascinazione è gravida di richiami alla negromanzia, all’occultismo. È la lagnanza della terra, lo spirito del peccato, la rottura. Perfino Ulisse è incantato dalle sirene: ascolta l’eco d’estasi legato a un palo. È una lotta tra il bene e il male. Anche il valoroso Gerardo Satriano nel romanzo L’eredità della priora è sedotto dalle fattucchiere lucane. Smarrisce la concezione del tempo e annulla la sua individualità. Così come perde la cognizione del tempo il giudice salentino protagonista del film Galantuomini di Winspeare. L’uomo prova una strana attrazione nei confronti di una donna legata al mondo della malavita. Per tale ragione perde tutte le certezze e confonde il bene e il male.

La letteratura, la poesia e il cinema hanno esaltato diverse volte le donne crudeli, in altre parole quelle dotate di un fascino antisolare, demoniaco. Per alcune strane similitudini elogio Giulia Venere, la domestica del libro Cristo si è fermato a Eboli di Carlo Levi. Leggo, annoto i passi del racconto. Ed elaboro il pensiero. Penso che sia un accostamento intrigante; tramite poche righe il lettore è catapultato in un anfratto antimoderno. «Giulia era una donna alta e formosa – scrive Levi – doveva aver avuto, nella gioventù una specie di barbara e solenne bellezza. Il viso era ormai rugoso per gli anni e giallo per la malaria, ma restavano i segni dell’antica venusità nella sua struttura severa, come nei muri di un tempio classico, che ha perso i marmi che l’adornavano, ma conserva intatta la forma e le proporzioni. […] Questo viso aveva un fortissimo carattere arcaico, non nel senso del classico greco, né nel romano, ma di una antichità misteriosa e crudele, cresciuta sempre sulla stessa terra senza rapporti e mistioni con gli uomini, ma legata alla zolla e alle eterne divinità animali. Vi si vedevano una fredda sensualità, una oscura ironia, una crudeltà naturale, una protervia impenetrabile e una passività piena di potenza che si legavano in un’espressione insieme severa, intelligente, malvagia». Con molta probabilità anche Levi ha subìto il fascino distruttivo della maga lucana. Emerge un ritratto sensuale, erotico, spietato.

Tale donna è un archetipo, un modello evoliano. Il filosofo della tradizione nella sua Metafisica del sesso rimarca gli oscuri aspetti. E appare con prepotenza la “dimensione fredda” evocata perfino da uno scrittore progressista come Carlo Levi. «È questa la dimensione fredda della donna – scrive Evola – quale incarnazione terrestre della Vergine, di Durgâ e in quanto essere yin. […] Che la donna sia connessa più dell’uomo alla terra, all’elemento cosmico – naturale è cosa dimostrata. […] Ma nell’antichità questa connessione si riferiva piuttosto all’aspetto yin della natura, dal dominio sovrasensibile notturno e inconscio, irrazionale e abissale, delle forze vitali. Di qui, nella donna certe disposizioni veggenti e magiche in senso stretto».

Nella rappresentazione cinematografica del libro Irene Papas veste i panni di Giulia. Avvertiamo nelle pieghe delle scene un velato erotismo colmo di allusioni estatiche. La donna nasconde il suo copro con le vesti. Soltanto i piedi sono scoperti: pertanto codesta forma di pudore primordiale si differenzia da quello delle donne orientali. Le cinesi considerano i piedi l’elemento primitivo da nascondere; le arabe, invece, coprono la bocca. E Giulia cammina scalza fra le macerie derelitte. In uno spezzone lascia intravedere una gamba nuda; la copre subito con un’aria sensuale. Magnetizza così l’uomo. Quest’ultimo è attratto dal gesto insolito della megera, dai movimenti furtivi, dal sensualismo impersonale. Proprio Evola dedica al pudore taluni passaggi coinvolgenti. «Si sa fin troppo bene quanto spesso la donna usa le vesti per produrre un maggior effetto eccitante allusivo alle promesse della sua nudità. Montaigne ebbe a scrivere che ci sono cose che si nascondono per meglio mostrarle».  Giulia Venere si è cristallizzata nelle sembianze di Irene Papas ed è difficile scindere le due figure. Il gesto insolito dell’attrice greca è un frammento penetrante e ipnotico. Con pochissime e calde movenze è riuscita a descrivere i sentieri tracciati nel libro evoliano.

L’uomo come potenza

L’uomo come potenza

Ex: http://romeocastiglione.wordpress.com

Sfoglio con calma le pagine del libro L’uomo come potenza di Julius Evola. Tolgo i petali di una malefica rosa e lascio cadere sul pavimento infiniti aneliti di spasimo. Leggo, rifletto. Dinanzi a me compare una realtà incontaminata: accolgo in silenzio la magia dei Tantra. E soffermo il mio sguardo su un rigo ipnotico. «Evocare una immagine. Fissarvisi, perdersi, per così dire in essa. Bruscamente, sostituirla con un’altra». Chiudo gli occhi e vedo con la mente una ragazza in una stanza. La luce penetra attraverso i buchi delle persiane. È un pomeriggio estivo. Avverto un desiderio di distruzione; l’Inquietudine assale il mio corpo. Così cambio figurazione. Sorge all’improvviso un oceano di ghiaccio. Non si avverte nessun rumore. Il desiderio è atrofizzato. È fuggita la sofferenza.

Resto attonito. Ebbene rileggo il testo altre volte. Sottolineo, scopro. Tra le mani ho un dardo infuocato. E questo idealismo magico è paurosamente meraviglioso: è la vittoria totale dell’individuo. È il superamento dell’idealismo hegeliano. È l’abbraccio mortale del romanticismo tedesco di Novalis e Fichte con il metallico pensiero di Nietzsche. È la negazione della dualità cristiana; conseguenzialmente è il rifiuto del rapporto di dipendenza tra l’Individuo e il Dio trascendente ritenuto fondamentale da Schleiermacher. L’Io è il signore assoluto.

L’uomo come potenza raccoglie nelle pagine l’impetuosa unione della migliore filosofia occidentale con le dottrine orientali. Evola porta all’attenzione del lettore un Oriente remoto e distante dagli stereotipi. Con codesto saggio è stata confutata la distinzione tra i due poli. Non alberga certamente in questo luogo l’Oriente del buddismo arcano e delle primordiali Upanishad. Non occorre fuggire dal mondo; bensì bisogna dominarlo. Proprio per siffatto motivo l’autore ha esaltato il sistema tantrico, in altre parole il sistema orientale con più assonanze con lo spirito del moderno occidente. Nell’età buia, nell’epoca del Kali Yuga non c’è spazio per la conoscenza: soltanto la potenza brutale libera l’individuo.

Quindi è possibile dominare il mondo tramite la potenza liberatrice. L’Io deve diventare un Dio. Propriamente occorre recuperare l’immensa e grandiosa signoria di sé. L’individuo è sovrano ed è una “super monade”. La via dell’azione è salvifica. L’individuo è come un nero cavallo demoniaco libero dai lacci e dalle leggi morali. È il nero cavallo dell’auriga di Platone; è il dionisiaco puledro dalle sembianze tenebrose. È il sole, è la potenza distruttiva. Agire unicamente per l’azione è l’obiettivo. Di conseguenza si oltrepassa la soglia del bene e del male. Non c’è più il bene, non c’è più il male. L’individuo decide ciò che è bene e ciò è male. «Non si tratta cioè – dice Evola – né di violare le leggi, né di conformarvisi, bensì di elevarsi al livello di ciò per cui ogni legge e condizione non ha senso alcuno». Orbene le cupe e ipnotiche parole sembrano vampe immaginifiche. Cerca Dio chi è debole. L’individuo che cerca la libertà diventa Dio.

Proprio con la pratica dei Tantra (precisamente del ҫakti – tantra) l’individuo si libera nel mondo. La potenza divina proietta lungo un avvallamento magico. La naturale realizzazione di sé trova la sua suprema origine nel principio femminile della Shakti. Pertanto lo shaktismo mantiene talune importantissime attinenze con gli antichi culti del mondo mediterraneo pelasgico. Kali è una dea nera e nuda. La sua sagoma sprigiona una mistica sessualità intrisa di disintegrazione; ed è nera anche la Diana d’Efeso. Così come la Madonna Nera del Tindari in Sicilia. Tramite i Tantra è possibile affermare la priorità della potenza sull’esistenza. Al Principio c’è un potere e l’essere è subordinato a esso. Nella scala gerarchica tutti gli esseri vengono dopo e anche Dio viene dopo. Allora la potenza è libera e non è soggetta alle leggi razionali e a quelle morali. In pratica non ha un Dharma, un ordine più su di lei. Con il mondo c’è un rapporto di potenza e la potenza è soltanto la manifestazione. La potenza in azione è la coincidenza del desiderio e della liberazione. Proprio il mondo è il luogo materiale della liberazione. Insomma, bisogna porsi «faccia a faccia con la legge, resisterle e non esserne spezzati ma dominarla e spezzarla; osare di strappar via i veli con la realtà originaria e prudentemente coperta, osare di trascendere la forma per mettersi a contatto con l’atrocità originaria di un mondo in cui bene e male, divino e umano, giusto e ingiusto non hanno alcun senso. […] Ostacoli uno solo: paura. È una lotta terribile. Vi può essere vittoria e vi può essere catastrofe». L’autore individua nei Tantra un titanismo indomito e velato di allusioni nietzschiane. Evola rivendica la possibilità di «poter vivere tragicamente».

Bisogna mantenere la schiena dritta fino al momento di lasciare sé. Per farlo serve la potenza di distrazione, la rinuncia, l’auto crudeltà, la durezza, e la pratica occulta. Per di più bisogna essere coerenti e lineari. Il pentimento è vietato: non esiste alcun rimorso. Una “colpa” voluta non è una reale colpa. È necessario evitare il piacere; in linea di massima la strada maestra è quella della maggior resistenza. Non bisogna giustificare le proprie azioni. Non sussiste la condotta morale: soltanto nel dualismo la morale ha un’importanza. Per il superamento dei paҫa, in altre parole dei legami affettivi è fondamentale mantenere una dura condotta. La pietà, la delusione, il peccato, il disgusto, la famiglia e le convenzioni non hanno alcun valore. È una lotta atroce. Spunta tra i riflessi dell’opera un crepuscolare catastrofismo. Si dipanano le tenebre della perversa realtà. L’Individuo sfida il Dharma, il cosmos. Raccoglie dentro di sé il caos e sprigiona la volontà di potenza. Si arrampica a mani nude sopra una rocciosa parete; il senso di vertigine minaccia la stabilità. Sotto c’è il vuoto. Egli può soltanto andare avanti. Le pietre si sbriciolano intorno a lui. Soltanto in cima c’è la libertà.

In pratica nel volume il tantrismo è spiegato alla stregua di una “scienza positiva”. E l’idealismo magico di Evola è un frullato robusto e ammaliante. Nell’idealismo di Evola, in altre parole nell’idealismo “magico” l’Io si mette in rapporto diretto con le cose. Supera così la conciliazione astratta di spirito e mondo, di soggetto e oggetto figurata da Hegel. Codesto idealismo trae linfa da Novalis: il pensatore romano, in un certo senso, enfatizza ancor di più l’individuo. L’uomo come potenza rientra nel novero delle opere evoliane a carattere filosofico speculativo. L’autore con la successiva Teoria dell’individuo assoluto esaspera ulteriormente la “tragica dimensione dell’esistenza”. Il Superuomo di Nietzsche è oltrepassato sul filo del rasoio. La potentissima “vettura” evoliana percorre una strada stregata. Il singolo sceglie un eccezionalissimo percorso e procede a velocità elevate. Pertanto il poetico “solipsismo” non incute nessun timore. L’individuo assoluto determina ciò che è vero e ciò che è falso. Pare Humpty Dumpty, il personaggio ideato da Lewis Carroll che incontra Alice; Humpty cambia dispoticamente il significato delle parole poiché si sente un padrone. E nell’epoca della dissoluzione, nell’ultima epoca il corpo cerca la sua liberazione. Non è più il tempo della conoscenza. L’ascetismo non alberga fra le righe del libro. Ebbene non subire il fascino distruttivo del volume equivale a non scottarsi i piedi sui carboni ardenti: è impossibile. Di là dai Tantra è possibile scorgere un codice crittografato dal sapore robusto. L’uomo come potenza potrebbe diventare una sorta di nuovo “manuale di sopravvivenza” per gli uomini estranei al proprio tempo. Ma è un manuale algido, rigido, severo. È la vittoria di Dioniso è la consequenziale sconfitta di Apollo; è la vittoria del disordine sull’ordine morale devastatore della potenza dell’individuo. Dopo aver letto L’uomo come potenza il mondo non sarà più lo stesso e i problemi saranno analizzati con distacco. È un libro per pochi eletti. È un libro elegantemente antidemocratico.

E nei nostri giorni esiste l’individuo assoluto. Ad esempio le frange estreme del pianeta ultras corrono lungo una linea invisibile e peccaminosa. Nel cinema ho ritrovato diverse volte tale figura. Il Principe del film Ultrà è un individuo assoluto; così come Jena Plissken di Fuga da New York. È un individuo assoluto Saverio lo skinhead del lungometraggio Teste Rasate. Ebbene anche il generale Kurtz di Apocalypse Now è un individuo assoluto. Chi domina il mondo e chi non riconosce le leggi morali è un Dio. È un Dio chi obbedisce soltanto a sé stesso. Oggi codesti pensieri fanno male. Pesano come frammenti di roccia gravidi di rabbia.

 

MIRCEA ELIADE'S 'TRADITIONALISM': APPEARANCE AND REALITY

 

MIRCEA ELIADE'S 'TRADITIONALISM': APPEARANCE AND REALITY

 

Timotheus Lutz

Ex: http://www.hyperion-journal.net
 

Relatively recently, certain academics with an interest in those who admit a perennial tradition and expound esoteric doctrines have profiled what they call the ‘traditionalist school’. In their characterization, some individuals have been assimilated wrongly to this category, most notably the famous scholar of ‘comparative religion’, Mircea Eliade. Others, who should be aware of the fundamental differences in outlook between Eliade and modern exponents of traditional metaphysics, have seen him as a sort of sympathetic ‘Trojan horse’ who would subtly alter the course of his field of study in academia, by way of a ‘phenomenological’ view of spirituality in human history, contrasted with the sterile, purely analytical outlook that predominates in the universities.  
 
Eliade’s encounter with the works of René Guénon and Julius Evola certainly had a significant, or perhaps even a primary influence on his methods of research and ways of interpreting what he called ‘archaic’ systems, but, as he himself stated frankly in his journals, he always kept his distance and was apprehensive about endorsing the views of the latter.
 
It should be made clear that clarifying Eliade’s position is not necessarily a condemnation, as, obviously, one can accept some ideas of a given thinker without accepting all. However, given the importance and the rarity of the ideas of Guénon and Evola, and the incomprehension of some major ones displayed by Eliade, a firm appraisal is called for, since some are eager to assume an identity of substance in the thought of the former and the latter, where it is really only an appearance.
 
He states his position most directly in a journal entry on 11 November 1966:
 
What Guénon and the other ‘hermetists’ say of the tradition should not be understood on the level of historical reality (as they claim). These speculations constitute a universe of systematically articulated meanings: they are to be compared to a great poem or a novel. It is the same with Marxist or Freudian ‘explanations’: they are true if they are considered imaginary universes. The ‘proofs’ are few and uncertain – they correspond to the historical, social, psychological ‘realities’ of a novel or of a poem.
 
All these global and systematic interpretations, in reality, constitute mythological creations, highly useful for understanding the world; but they are not, as their authors think, ‘scientific explanations’. [1]
 
The classification of Guénon as a ‘hermetist’ is rather strange since, in his writings, he rarely discussed the hermetic doctrines. Since his main focus was metaphysics (a domain not subject to becoming), it is incorrect to classify him with a title pertaining to cosmological doctrines (which pertain to the domain of becoming). Comparing the formulations of Guénon and those similar in outlook to poems and novels is completely wrong: in poetic creations the subjective is primary, while in Guénon’s writings (as in those of Aristotle, Plotinus or Proclus) a precise objectivity is evident. As far as proofs, in this domain there cannot be empirical demonstration, only support by way of logic and analogy on one end, and identifying principles within oneself on the other. One either understands or does not. That this is a major obstacle for many is apparent. We assume the term ‘scientific explanations’ was not taken from Guénon or another’s writing, but used to imply erroneously that they would describe their interpretations as scientific; this is also an error since none of them would claim their interpretations could be explained scientifically.
 
We can assume this is Eliade’s basic view, since by 1966 his outlook was more or less fully developed, and since he shows similar opinions later on. This was also an opinion he had long held, as shown in an entry from 1947:
 
Only after you’ve studied Coomaraswamy’s writings in detail do you discover, suddenly, the poverty, the ‘elementarism’ [rom. primarism], of René Guénon’s œuvre. And the insufferable self-importance with which he hides, so often, his ignorance! [2]
 
We are not sure what he means here by ‘elementarism’, but perhaps it is Guénon’s focus on principial reality, which is the whole point of his works, contrasted with Ananda Coomaraswamy’s much greater emphasis on factual analysis and use of citations and academic sources. Although Coomaraswamy was indeed a (celebrated) academic, he was in agreement with nearly all of Guénon’s fundamental positions. If this is what Eliade means, it is simply another instance of his incomprehension of the primacy of metaphysics over confirming individual facts. We have found that Coomaraswamy’s writings do not reveal any significant ‘poverty’ in Guénon’s works, but instead complement them nicely.
 
Incomprehension of some major ideas is also apparent much later. In the early 1980s he writes: ‘Like René Guénon, Evola presumed a ‘primordial tradition’, in the existence of which I could not believe; I was suspicious of its artificial, ahistorical character’ [3]. To modern ears, the term ‘primordial tradition’ is likely to evoke visions of some perfect civilization in the sky, but first and foremost it is to be understood as atemporal (and thus, also, correctly described by Eliade as ahistorical) principles on which all genuinely traditional cultures are based. These principles are superior to, but are as immutable, in a similar manner, as the laws of logic or mathematics. To call them artificial is to demand that they be intelligible only as a particular, empirical example, and so displays, again, his incomprehension.
 
Worth quoting is his admission of a use for these authors:
 
I try once again, but I don’t succeed: Yeats’ ‘occultism’, over which so much fuss is made, doesn’t interest me. It’s cheap, ‘literary’, suspect – and, ultimately, uninteresting. Out of all the modern occultist authors whom I have read, only R. Guénon and J. Evola are worthy of being taken into consideration. I’m not discussing here to what extent their assertions are ‘true’. But what they write makes sense. [4]
 
And another, a response to a student of his interested in occultism: ‘. . . if one is truly attracted to hermetism, he ought to read the ‘authorized’, if not Cardanus, at least Coomaraswamy and René Guénon’ [5]. Clearly he still thought highly of some of their formulations, if only as comprehensible reference points for what is often and wrongly passed off as ‘esotericism’.
 
The critical attitude appears again in his dismissive appraisal of Evola’s intellectual autobiography. Eliade’s instinct to privilege academic authorities and those who have received wide acceptance is revealed clearly here:
 

I’m reading the intellectual autobiography of J. Evola, Il Cammino del mercurio [the title written is wrong: it is cinabro (cinnabar), not mercurio –ed.], with much melancholy. The chapter in which he presents and discusses the idealistic ‘university philosophy’, represented by Croce and Gentile: he speaks about his two theoretical volumes in which he supposedly destroyed those ‘professors,’ etc. etc. The naïveté (full of resentment) with which he situates himself in the history of contemporary thought – even though he states repeatedly that his volumes have not been reviewed and have not evoked any response . . .
 
There must be, indeed, several tons of printed paper in Italy alone on which the philosophy of Croce and Gentile has been discussed. Of what use, then, has Evola’s ‘radical criticism’ and ‘destruction’ been? And abroad, poor J. Evola is viewed as an ultra-fascist. The copy of the English translation of his book on Buddhism in Swift Library is disfigured with polemical annotations (written in indelible lead!): they say (even on the cover) that Evola is a fascist and a ‘racist’, that his theories about ‘Aryans’ were borrowed from A. Rosenberg, etc. I remember the brief, harsh review in Journal asiatique written by J. Filliozat in the same vein: J. E. is a racist, ultra-fascist, etc.
 
Evola tries to appear indifferent to such criticisms, although he prefers them to the ‘conspiracy of silence’ of which he claims he has suffered all his life. And yet, what a melancholic spectacle to see him talking about what he has done, how he has ‘destroyed’ and ‘surpassed’ everyone, even Nietzsche and Heidegger (whom he claims, moreover, to have anticipated . . .). [6]
 
Eliade does not admit that the soundness and truth of arguments are more important than how widely read, received and reviewed they are. The quantity of inferior and false ideas that are celebrated in the universities, then and now, is very high. Many are unable to comprehend, nevertheless, how curtly and effectively false ideas, however celebrated they are or however voluminously they are presented, can be dismissed. Of the mass of writings discussing the thought of Croce and Gentile, only Evola’s had looked at these philosophies from the traditional perspective, which is of use, simply, because it is the only one not subject to the movement of opinion and history. Mention of the idiotic slurs applied to him by those who have misunderstood his perspective are not relevant; if one does not take the time to adequately understand a given idea or formulation, his opinion does not matter. It is clear that Eliade is displaying a historicist prejudice; because his writings have been ignored (apparently, at least) and since no admission of the soundness of his criticisms has manifested visibly, the value of the writings in themselves, as formulations to be judged solely by their truth-value, is ignored, and Evola’s observation of this is considered a ‘spectacle’, the judgment of the history of ideas being obviously the decisive factor for Eliade. We might also add, like Eliade did when he compared Coomaraswamy and Guénon vis-à-vis other ‘occultists’ above, that, unlike Heidegger’s and much of Nietzsche’s writing, what Evola writes makes sense.
 
Despite praise of some aspects of his work, on at least one occasion he engaged in rather irresponsible gossip about Evola. In 1958, in a letter to the poet and former Iron Guard member Vasile Posteucă, regarding a request for information about Evola’s encounter with Corneliu Codreanu, Eliade warned him that Evola was a ‘racist’ and a ‘Nazi’, and liable to generate confusion if used as a source [7]. Never mind that he made it clear that his ‘racism’ was of a type quite different from that of the National Socialists, from whom he explicitly distanced himself ideologically, even during the war, and that several mainstream and semi-mainstream publishers in Europe found his works fit to print! A man of Eliade’s sophistication should have known better than to describe Evola so falsely and simplistically. One would not have thought that, being himself the target of similar slurs by certain elements in academia, he would engage in this kind of rumor-mongering. If the account of the exchange is not a fabrication or an exaggeration, then our opinion of Eliade is lowered considerably.
 
Evola demonstrated quite well the limits of Eliade’s formulations in a review of the latter’s book on Yoga:
 
Our fundamental opinion of Eliade’s work on Yoga may be expressed by saying that it is the most complete of all those that have been written on this subject in the domain of the history of religions and of Orientalism. One cannot mention another that for wealth of information, for comparisons, for philological accuracy, for the examination and utilization of all previous contributions, stands on the same level. But when once this has been admitted, some reservations have to be made. In the first place it would seem that the material he handles has often got the better of the writer. I mean to say that in his anxiety to make use of all, really all, that is known on the several varieties of Yoga and on what is directly or indirectly connected therewith, he has neglected the need of discriminating and selecting so as to give importance only to those parts of Yoga that are standard and typical, avoiding the danger that the reader lose track of the essential features by confusing them with the mass of information on secondary matters, variations, and side products. Looking at it from this standpoint, we are even led to wonder whether Eliade’s previous book Yoga, essai sur les origines de la mystique indienne (Paris, 1936), is not in some respects superior to this last one, which is a reconstruction of the former. In the first book the essential points of reference were more clearly outlined, they were less smothered by the mass of information brought together, and the references to less-known forms of Yoga, such as the Tantric and others, were more clearly pointed out [ . . . ]
 
After this glance at the contents of Eliade’s new book we are tempted to inquire of him a somewhat prejudicial question: to whom is the book addressed? As we have openly declared, it is a fundamental work for specialists in the field not only of Oriental research, but also in that of the history of religions. But in his introduction Eliade states that the book is addressed also to a wider public and he speaks of the importance that a knowledge of a doctrine such as that of Yoga may have for the solution of the existential problems of the modern Westerner, confirmed as that doctrine is by immemorial experience.
 
Here complications arise. To meet such a purpose it would be necessary to follow a different plan and to treat the matter in a different way. A Westerner who reads Eliade’s book may be able to acquire an idea of Yoga as ‘la science intégrale de l’homme [the integral science of man]’, he may acquire knowledge of a teaching that has faced in practice as well as in theory the problem of ‘deconditioning’ man; he will thus add yet one other panorama to the list of the many modern culture has provided him with. His interest will perhaps be more lively than the ‘neutral’ interest of the specialist; he may flirt with the aspects of a ‘spiritualite virante’. But on the existential plane the situation will be pretty much the same as it was before, even if the information available be deeper, more accurate, better documented. The possibility of exercising a more direct influence could only be looked for from a book addressed to those who have shown an interest in Yoga and similar sciences not because they seek for information but because they are seeking for a path; a book that in this special field would remove the misunderstandings, the popular notions, the deviations, and the delusions spread by a certain kind of literature to which we referred at the beginning of this article; a book displaying the accuracy and knowledge that we find in this work of Eliade, in as far as it is an exposition kept within the limits of the history of religions. Such a book has perhaps still to be written. But even so the essential need would not be met, for it is the unanimous opinion of the true masters of Yoga that the key to their science cannot be handed on by the written word. [8]
 
It could be said figuratively that if one who comprehends and adopts the traditional perspective can be said to have a view from the peaks that allows the most complete survey, then Eliade could be described as not having completed the ascent, his vision being obscured by clouds above or enamored by objects on the path to the summit. If he could see individual rocks on the path more closely, we must remember that the view from summit is still the most important one.
 
SOURCES
 
[1] Eliade, Mircea. No Souvenirs: Journal 1957-1969, p. 291.
 
[2] Eliade. Jurnal, 26 August 1947, M.E.P., box 15/2 (trans. Mac Linscott Ricketts). *
 
[3] Eliade. Autobiography, Volume II, p. 152.
 
[4] Eliade. Jurnal, 5 September 1964, M.E.P., box. 16/6 *
 
[5] Ibid., 4 March 1969, box 15/4 *
 
[6] Ibid., 20 December 1964, box. 16/6, pp. 2640-2641 *
 
[7] Posteucă, Vasile. Jurnal, in: Gabriel Stănescu (ed.), Mircea Eliade în conştiinna contemporanilor săi din exil, Norcross: Criterion, [2001], pp. 272-277 (275 – entry of 28 October 1958). *
 
[8] Evola, Julius. Yoga, Immortality & Freedom. East and West, vol. 6, no. 3, 1955.

* Quotes and citations from: Bordas, Liviu. The difficult encounter in Rome: Mircea Eliade’s post-war relation with Julius Evola – new letters and data. International Journal on Humanistic Ideology, IV, no. 2, Autumn-Winter 2011, pp. 125-158. Retrieved from: Academia.edu

Il sapere tradizionale di Evola e la scienza ermetica di Hegel

Il sapere tradizionale di Evola e la scienza ermetica di Hegel

Giandomenico Casalino

Ex: http://www.ereticamente.net

La comparazione di natura filosofica tra Julius Evola e Giorgio F. G. Hegel, pensatori di natura sapienziale tanto lontani nel tempo e, quindi, apparentemente, così differenti, sia nel lessico da loro adottato che in relazione al contesto storico-culturale in cui hanno vissuto ed operato, impone rigorosamente la ricerca di ciò che realmente abbia significato per gli stessi la Cosa del pensiero, l’oggetto di cui e su cui hanno tematizzato, al di là delle modalità e cioè delle divergenze attraverso le quali, tutto ciò, loro malgrado, si è espresso. Quindi il lavoro deve essere caratterizzato da un approccio di natura ermeneutica, che privilegi non tanto la dimensione filologica quanto quella teoretica che, data la sua natura, abbia l’ambizione di varcare i limiti del tempo e delle stagioni culturali e, per dirla con il Kerenyi, entri in Idea nel cuore del Pensiero, che, nella sua inten­zionalità, li ha guidati nel percorso dello Spirito. Quanto dedotto vuol significare che, come intorno ad Evola il discorso deve superare la “vulgata” del suo preteso “abbandono” della Filosofia, con la co­siddetta “chiusura” del periodo ad essa dedicato e l’ “apertura” nei confronti di ciò che tout court si è definito Tradizione, così per lo Hegel è necessario emendare radicalmente quanto certa critica pigra e conformista ha dedotto sulla sua pretesa modernità e sul concetto di razionale confuso e mistifi­cato con quello cristiano e/o moderno di razionalismo individualistico e quindi astratto. At­tesa la complessa vastità del tema, faremo in modo di esaminare e di indicare sinteticamente alcuni nodi essenziali comuni alla prospettiva sia di Evola che di Hegel, al fine di offrire quelli che, secondo noi, pos­sono essere i percorsi di ricerca e di studio relativi alla quaestio sollevata.

****

L’autentica “svolta” spirituale esperita da Evola alla fine degli anni venti del Novecento non è con­sistita, a ben riflettere, in un “abbandono” della Fi­losofia e del suo orizzonte di ricerca e di visione, del suo oggetto di amore e dei suoi itinerari aristo­telicamente dovuti, ma bensì in un lasciare al suo destino di impotenza gnoseologica e di inefficacia spirituale la Filosofia moderna o meglio il concetto moderno della stessa (che è poi quello cristiano…). La frase di Lagneau sulla Filosofia considerata una sorta di “…riflessione tesa a riconoscere la sua propria insufficienza e la necessità di un’azione assoluta che conduca al di là della medesima…” (Rev. de Met. et de Mor., Mars 1898, p. 127), posta da Evola come “incipit” ai Saggi sull’idealismo ma­gico (1925), in concreto vuol significare che per realizzare il suo logos, la sua ragione, la Filosofia nel momento attuale, deve superare, andare al di là, effettuare un salto di natura ontologica per collo­carsi nel luogo dello spirito che, e qui sta l’autenticità ermeneutica del percorso evoliano, è il luogo di pertinenza da sempre della Filosofia nel suo unico e autentico significato che è quello premo­derno e cioè greco: percorso spirituale, di natura iniziatica, in un télos che è l’omòiosis theò! Ciò è quanto Evola ha compiuto nella sua azione realiz­zativa e di paidéia dei fondamenti della Scienza dello Spirito, sin dalla costituzione del Gruppo di UR, la cui natura, nel significato di essenza e quindi la sua virtus come finalità, è alquanto simile a ciò che è stata l’Accademia Platonica dagli inizi sino a Proclo: palestra rigorosa del Sapere che è ascesi filosofico-rituale e non cerimoniale, la cui finalità, pertanto, è l’assimilazione al Divino. Tutto ciò cosa ha a che fare con il concetto e la prassi moderni della Filo­sofia? Cosa ha a che fare la vera ricerca del sapere che è essere con, al di là di rare eccezioni, un sedicente “insegnamento” di natura sterilmente nozionistica e stupida­mente specialistica, da “dotti ignoranti”, come si esprime lo stesso Evola, vera caricatura mistificante di quanto l’uomo cerca sin dall’alba del suo spirito? Nulla, desolatamente nulla! Tale concetto moderno e quindi degradato di ciò che Aristotele afferma essere l’atteggiamento più naturale per l’uomo, cosa ha in comune con la definizione espressa dallo Hegel sull’essere la Fi­losofia “… la considerazione esoterica di Dio…”? (Enc. Scienze Fil.) e con il principio di Platone che il filosofo è solo colui il quale vede il Tutto, confermato dallo stesso Hegel quando insegna che “il Vero è l’Intero”?Assolutamente niente, ma le affermazioni hegeliane come quella di Platone hanno tutto in comune invece con quanto Evola enuncia in quella autentica e maestosa professione di fede platonica che è l’inizio di Rivolta contro il mondo moderno, quando edifica tutta la sua opera sul Sapere intorno alle due nature del Mondo, la naturale e la sovrannaturale, come medesime dimensioni e dello Spirito e della Phýsis, tanto che, platonicamente, in Evola la Fisica è Teologia in quanto il Mondo “è pieno di Dei!” E la Teologia in quanto Teosofia, Sapere intorno al Divino, è la stessa Logica che ha per oggetto il Nous come intelletto che è il Dio dormiente nell’uomo e quindi nel cosmo: l’intero Logos evoliano ha per fine, in guisa esclusiva, la rimozione attiva di quel “quindi” in quanto impedimento effettuale all’oscuramento dello Spirito; è, pertanto, opera di realizzazione del Sé, perseguita ed indicata come Via iniziatico-solare, di natura platonico­apollinea e non nientificazione orfico-dionisiaca dell’Io che, avendo la natura spirituale del pathèin e non del  mathéin (Aristotele, Perì philosophias, fr. 15), non è conoscenza dell’autentica essenza dello Spirito in quanto realtà Divina trascendentemente immanente che è come dire la realtà dell’Individuo Assoluto, vera sublimazione dell’Io; “…la filosofia ha lo scopo di riconoscere la verità, di conoscere Dio, poiché Dio è la verità assoluta…”, afferma Hegel nelle Lezioni sulla filosofia della religione; (vol. II).  Allora è d’uopo affermare, senza alcun timore, che sia in Evola che in Hegel, riappare, in piena modernità, il senso e il significato greco della Filosofia, stru­mento per il conseguimento del Risveglio, che è la rinascita, dopo la caduta-oblio, in quanto anàmnesi di ciò che si è e lo si è sempre stati pur  non avendone scienza (ignoranza come avidya), quindi riconquista di un Sa­pere che coincide con l’Essere in senso ontologico. Talché la Filosofia, nel suo vero ed unico significato, che è quello platonico-iniziatico (Lettera VII), nocciolo esoterico della stessa esperienza spirituale dei Misteri (Fedone, 69c-d), è quindi  Scienza Sacra in senso eminente e autentica Tradizione, avente ad “oggetto” solo ed esclusivamente il Divino, che è la Verità in quanto essenza e dell’uomo e del Mondo, come Cosmo; è pertanto Sapere per pochi, è gnosi, è Teosofia, conoscenza del Dio che si rivela, nella completezza del percorso rituale-filosofico, come theopoìesis (deificatio) (Platone, Teeteto, 176 b 1; Repubblica, 613 a b; Timeo, 90 d; Leggi, 716 c s; Plotino, Enneadi, I, 2, 6, 25; Proclo, Elementi di Teologia, 127; 112, 31; Corpus Hermeticum, I, 26; 16, 12), significando ciò il rammemo­rare la consapevolezza quale Sapere, aldilà ed oltre sia il Mito che il Simbolo (livelli di conoscenza sa­pientemente riconosciuti, sia da Evola che da Hegel, inefficaci ai fini della Scienza, in relazione allo stato intellettivo-noetico puro che è l’apolli­neo), che il Dio è “oggetto” da superare, da negare,  andando oltre il dualismo soggetto-oggetto per “osare” essere Lui! Tale identificazione, sia in Hegel che in Evola, è la stessa autoconoscenza del Sé quale Assoluto nella sua natura solare, in totale estraneità, pertanto, ad ogni confusione panteistica e ad ogni vedantino acosmismo spirituale. In tale guisa, pertanto, anche se mediante linguaggi diffe­renti e in contesti storico-culturali lontani, Evola ed Hegel dicono il Medesimo e la Filosofia, quindi, nella loro opera non è più quell’insulsa propaggine della teologia dogmatica (cristiana), né quella serva ti­mida delle cosiddette scienze moderne, cioè della concezione parziale, riduttiva e quindi irreale, in quanto galileiana, della natura, ormai desacraliz­zata e ridotta ad oggetto di calcolo matematico e ciò al di là della autentica rivoluzione epistemologica operata nel XX secolo dalla fisica dei quanti e dalla sua meccanica che, invece, ritornando ad una visione platonica del reale (vedi Heisenberg ed il suo concetto della chòra platonica…) non fa che confermare, tutto sommato, il sapere sia di Evola che di Hegel. La Filosofia torna così ad essere ciò che non può non essere, consistendo, secondo Aristotele, nel Destino che gli Dei hanno affidato all’uomo; non “fede”, non “credenza”, ma Sapere che è esposizione del Mondo in quanto Pensiero puro, sono “le idee di Dio prima della “creazione” del mondo e di ogni oggetto finito” (Hegel); è speculazione (da specu­lum) dove il Pensiero si specchia nel Mondo, in senso oggettivo e vede se stesso come Idea e quindi Unità (Hegel); è la realtà dell’Oro ermetico, che è la Cosa più vicina e nel contempo più lontana (Evola), è la certezza sen­sibile, è il concreto esistente che è da sempre Spirito, solo che non lo sa, (medesimo concetto esprime Plotino in riferimento all’esperienza del “toccare”  il Dio [Enneadi, VI, 9, 7]); l’Oro si trova infatti nella più oscura Tenebra o Feccia (Ermetismo) da cui l’uomo fugge, proprio perché non sa che l’Opera deve iniziare da quello stato come riconquista eroica che corporizza lo Spirito e spiritualizza il corpo, ed è la grande fatica del concetto (Hegel). Tutto ciò Evola lo rende manifesto nella sua opera  La Tradizione ermetica che è la summa circolare del viaggio iniziatico (dal Corpo come impietramento del principio Fuoco allo stesso Corpo però rinato come rosso Cinabro, solfuro di mercurio) simile alla circolarità triadica della Scienza della Logica di Hegel: il Logos qui non è una conoscenza astratta e quindi profana cioè falsa ma, come per gli antichi maestri neoplatonici, è l’apertura dell’occhio dello Spirito sul Mondo come è, e quindi come appare, ciò significando che  essenza ed esistenza sono il Medesimo che è l’Essere, nel “momento”, che non è temporale, ma logico cioè ontologico, in quanto riguarda la natura profonda dell’uomo, in cui lo stesso, acquisito il medesimo livello di essere-conoscenza, è nella capacità di vedere, attesa la natura epoptica della filosofia evoliana. La veneranda Tradizione Platonica, a cui appartengono sia Hegel che Evola, è il filone aureo che da Plotino, Proclo ed Eckhart sino a Nicola da Cusa, Giorgio Gemisto Pletone, Marsilio Ficino, Benedetto Spinoza e Jacob Boehme, non è altro che Introduzione alla Scienza dell’ Io, come spirito Universale, come Atto puro, proprio nel significato dell’autoctisi gentiliana che è poi il causa sui di Spinoza, che, nel Sapere Assoluto, che è filosofico, realizza il Sapere del Dio, dove quel “del” è tanto il Sapere che ha il Dio come “oggetto” che il Sapere che appartiene al Dio stesso.

****

Il situarsi sia di Evola che di Hegel nella Tradizione Platonica, ci conduce in immediato nella evidenza relativa ad una fondamentale verità presente nel loro orizzonte sapienziale: la polare identità tra Pensiero ed Essere, intesi in senso cosmico e quindi oggettivo e non certo nel significato individuale e soggettivo che è come dire cartesiano e quindi moderno; identità che è da costruire, con fatica eroica, in quanto cammino catartico (Feno­menologia dello Spirito in Hegel; Rivolta contro il mondo moderno in Evola) per la riacquisita co­scienza che è poi Inizio dell’altro percorso, avente il Fine della identificazione plotiniana, che è il mònos pros mònon, come mutamento della propria natura (metànoia), principio noetico ormai desto, non più e non mai “esterno” all’Io ma Sé autentico che è al contempo (e da sempre) il Lògos del mondo (Tradizione Ermetica in Evola; Scienza della Logica in Hegel). Il Sapere (Nous) che coin­cide anzi è l’Essere (Phýsis) è ciò che, in guisa auro­rale, afferma la sapienza indoeuropea, ad iniziare da Parmenide e dai Veda (Atman è Brahman). Il Mi­stero di tale verità è l’Inesprimibile del Pensiero che si riconosce nel Tutto come i Molti che è visto nell’Istante- exàiphnes come Uno (Platone, Parmenide, 156, c) ed è il fondamento della conoscenza comune sia ad Evola che ad Hegel: ad uno stadio di consape­volezza, che è un “momento” (“temporale” ma che non si svolge nel tempo…) della coscienza e quindi un essere della stessa, in senso ontologico, corri­sponde uno stadio o livello di conoscenza-sapere che è il vivere-essere lo stadio o livello equiva­lente e corrispondente nel Mondo; tale processo spirituale in Evola è da situare in guisa manifesta dopo la catarsi dialettica che certamente coincide con la fase del suo pensiero preparatoria della teoresi dell’Idealismo magico che è il salto nella gnosi platonica. La realtà dello spirito che, come qui appare evidente, è circolare, e va dall’io al mondo e dal mondo all’io vuol significare che si conosce ciò che si è e si è ciò che si conosce e, quindi, si conosce ciò che si diviene, equivalendo ciò al ritorno anamnestico verso l’Inizio, dove si è sempre stati, nella natura in cui si è sempre consistiti ma della quale si è presa coscienza, solo dopo aver perfezionato l’Opera filosofica. Evola ed Hegel, nel solco del platonismo, ci inducono pertanto a meditare sulla dimensione dello Spirito, nel “momento” in cui il Pensiero, pensando il suo “passato” (l’Anima, il suo sonno…), si riconosce tale ed il Mondo, gli Dei (l’oggetto) appare quello che è sempre stato, cioè il Pen­sato, la dimensione dell’Anima, il movimento, la Vita, la dialettica (essere-non essere; vita-morte; dolore-gioia…). Evola lo afferma in tutta la sua opera: se si è forma, si vede la forma, che è sempre, ma anche colui che “ora” la vede lo è sempre stato solo che lo aveva dimenticato. Secondo Evola ed Hegel, ovviamente, non è questione di ideologie o di modi di vedere il mondo, cioè di stati soggettivi, poiché di soggettivo, nel senso di personale o individuale-psicologistico, qui non è dato parlare, ma di stati molteplici, differentemente gerarchici, dell’Essere (sia in senso microcosmico che macrocosmico, cioè quello che ignorantemente chiamiamo ancora tanto “soggetto” quanto “oggetto”)!

Hegel, infatti, nella Scienza della Logica, quando parla di meccanicismo, chimismo, organicismo, non sta enunciando determinate visioni del mondo o punti di vista, ma sta dicendo che una natura, in senso ontologico, meccanicistica conosce solo il meccanicismo o meglio il livello o “momento” meccanicistico del mondo e quindi sta trattando filosoficamente degli stati della coscienza, come li­velli del pensiero a cui corrispondono gli stessi stati della natura poiché questa è il medesimo Pensiero uscito da sè (proodòs plotiniana); essi sono pertanto il percorso del Sapere come Idea a cui corrispondono stati equivalenti della natura poiché la Verità cioè il Divino è l’Intero cioè l’Uno (e questo non è lo stesso principio di corrispondenza magica tra uomo e Metalli-Mondo cioè Astro-Nume-Metallo tanto in senso microcosmico quanto macrocosmico che è il fondamento della Tradizione sia nella forma Er­metica che in quella Platonica?). Evola dice il medesimo quando afferma che Inferno e Paradiso, esotericamente, sono stati della coscienza nei quali e attraverso i quali si conoscono le tenebre infernali o le luminosità celesti che sono livelli o dimensioni dell’Essere dello stesso mondo o dimensioni del Tutto, il chiuso Athanòr, che una natura corrispondente andrà a co­noscere o tenebroso come assenza di Luce o luminoso. Pertanto un essere che è, come spiritualità autentica, o il primo o il se­condo, può conoscere solo o uno o l’altro, cre­dendo, nel momento ingenuo (mitico, secondo Evola), intellettivo-astratto (direbbe Hegel), del percorso di conoscenza, che si tratti di un “altro” mondo a sé medesimo opposto e definito dualisticamente non-Io. Gli Dei non esistono a priori per fede… se non si cono­scono e si conoscono solo esperimentando e quindi essendo lo stato corrispondente. Se in Evola tutto ciò è definito identificazione iniziatico-­solare in cui è manifesto che Io sono Te, ricono­scendo pertanto l’irrealtà dello stato religioso-devozionale, in Hegel è il percorso dello Spirito che supera l’oggettivazione del Sé (Dio), come Altro e, con la semplificazione filosofica ed il suo Sapere apicale, è l’Assoluto che conosce se stesso, “accadendo” come evento logico, cioè fuori dal tempo, “dopo” lo stato-essere spirituale rappresentativo che è il religioso-dualistico. È la realizzazione della conoscenza che il soggetto è l’oggetto, il Pensiero come Atto puro cosmico è l’Essere che è il Dio, e si ritorna ad Aristotele, al Pensiero di Pensiero, al Pensiero che pensa Se stesso ed è poi l’Autarca di Evola! In sostanza ed in termini filosofici, cioè concettuali, è il Risveglio buddistico (vedi La dottrina del risveglio) che in Evola è la realizzazione della vera natura  dell’uomo, rendendo manifesta quella occulta o incosciente (Aristotele, Etica nicomachea, 1177b 33) idea di origine platonica (Timeo, 90c) che è l’athanatìzein di Proclo, cioè il rendersi immortali in quanto si assume piena consapevolezza e quindi Sapere di esserlo sempre stati. Corollario di tale Tradizione gnosica è, in Evola, La Scienza dell’Io che si riconosce, quale atto magico di anamnesi, come Idea eterna del Sé: “…Io alla seconda persona, alter ego celeste dell’uomo: è ancora l’uomo ma nello stesso tempo non è più solo l’uomo…” (Henry Corbin) ed è l’affermazione che la conoscenza del Dio è l’autoconoscenza del Dio come Divino nell’uomo e dell’uomo: il Dio si conosce e si vede nell’uomo, come l’uomo, nel doversi conoscere, conosce Se medesimo quale il Divino stesso. È il sapere di natura apollinea, di cui enigmaticamente parla Platone nell’Alcibiade Maggiore (133 c)…!

*****

In riferimento a tale Sapere Pavel Alexandrovic Florenski ne Le radici universali dell’Idealismo rileva la natura primordiale dello stesso e trae la conclusione che il Platonismo è la Conoscenza originaria presente nelle Tradizioni religiose e sapienziali di tutti i popoli del Mondo, cioè a dire, nella sue essenza metafisica, la Tradizione Unica di tutte le Civiltà, nella forma tanto mitico-religiosa nei primordi delle stesse, quanto magica ed unitivo-sapienziale al tramonto del ciclo.

Pertanto il Sapere, la Gnosi, di cui non solo parlano o scrivono sia Evola che Hegel, ma che sono e realizzano come mutamento della natura, essendo lo stesso Sapere, è in virtù di “qualcosa” di arcaico, di ancestrale, di originario, di non classificabile nelle e con le comuni categorie dello Spirito non solo di questo tempo ma di ogni tempo; “qualcosa” che è una realtà vivente, un fuoco che brucia nella continuità della loro vita, nel loro athanòr, come fiamma che consuma tutti i residui, le scorie, le impurità tanto che “magicamente” loro appaiono quello che sono in quanto Essere come identità di essenza ed esistenza; dai contemporanei sono infatti veduti come autentici maghi, nel significato arcaico e quindi vero del termine, chiarito, quasi nello stesso periodo di tempo, sia da Florenski che da Evola in questi termini: natura attiva dello Spirito nei confronti delle Forze e dei Numi cosmici e tanto intensa da apparire quasi naturale, come innata identificazione con gli stessi, mediante riconoscimento anamnestico!

Allora il Sapere tradizionale, che equivale a dire metafisico e che stiamo tentando di delineare per brevi cenni, è di natura magico-sacrale!

E non può essere diversamente, atteso il fatto che Evola non è lo scrittore, lo studioso o l’erudito, figlio di una sclerotica civilizzazione ma è frutto di una Kultur che, proprio nel senso spengleriano, è qualcosa di vivente che emerge maestosa e luminosa, vasta e complessa nella sua cosmica valenza, da tutta la sua opera che è principalmente ed in guisa essenziale, la sua stessa presenza e la sua vita come Simbolo e Mito. Non si può negare la presenza della Luce di questa forza magico-sacrale, quasi sciamanica, in uomini, in Sapienti Solfurei, autentiche trasparenze della doxa omerica, cioè della gloria del Pensiero, inteso in senso Vivente e Divino, in tutti coloro i quali, con linguaggi diversi ed in tempi storico-culturali oltremodo differenti,  hanno osato dire, vivere ed essere Verità, autenticamente rivoluzionarie e destabilizzanti per tutte le Chiese, i Dogmi e le Istituzioni dominanti, quasi come Vie della mano destra di ogni epoca, Verità che hanno sempre incusso paura, tremore e financo terrore nell’uomo, inducendo e provocando mistificazione del loro Dire, calunnie sul loro Fare, negazione del loro Essere e tentativi, peraltro vani, di oscuramento della Verità da loro eroicamente difesa. È la vicenda, non solo di un Evola, criminalizzato e mistificato o di un Hegel, incompreso e pertanto trasferito tout court, nonostante la geniale intuizione di un Feuerbach sull’essere il sapiente Svevo “…il Proclo tedesco…”, nel positivismo e nel laicismo immanentista o nel soggettivismo postcartesiano, ma è la storia umana anche di Eckhart, di Giorgio Gemisto Pletone, di Boehme, di Spinoza, cioè è il destino comune, la risposta, la reazione di chi, in buona sostanza, rifiuta, ne ha paura e non comprende insegnamenti come questi di Plotino: “…Il compito non è essere virtuosi o buoni ma essere Dei!…”; “…Non devo andare io agli Dei ma gli Dei venire a me…!”; che equivalgono a ciò che dice Eckhart nei Sermoni: “…Dio ed io siamo una cosa sola…!”; a quanto afferma Hegel: “…Si crede usualmente che l’Assoluto debba trovarsi molto al di là mentre è invece proprio ciò che è del tutto presente e che, in quanto pensanti, anche senza averne espressamente coscienza, portiamo sempre con noi…!” o a ciò che rivela Boehme nel De Signatura rerum: “…tra la Nascita Eterna, la Redenzione dalla Caduta e la scoperta della Pietra dei Filosofi non c’è alcuna differenza…!”.

Si tratta, quindi, di un Sapere primordiale, è la Tradizione iniziatica regale, è la originaria via indoeuropea agli Dei, nel senso spirituale e realizzativo del Risveglio del Re che dorme nel profondo dell’anima, ed è, innanzitutto ed essenzialmente il Rito filosofico quotidiano e costante onde realizzare il Katèchon che, difendendo il principio superiore della coscienza e quello animico ad esso orientato, costituisca invalicabili barriere nei confronti delle potenze tenebrose provenienti dal basso; al fine di “ricostruire” eroicamente la natura autentica dell’uomo: la libertà dello Spirito, nella divinificazione che è l’Eghemonicòn stoico, di cui parla Evola, la liberazione dell’uomo dalle catene invisibili con cui egli stesso si è reso prigioniero di sé medesimo! Tale Conoscenza suprema che è di una semplicità fanciullesca (gli antichi Ermetisti parlano di “gioco di bambini”) mai come nella fase presente, di palese e drammatica decadenza spirituale da fine di un ciclo di civiltà, come rivela Aristotele (Metafisica, XII, 8,1074a, 38-b 14), è di straordinaria ed inattuale attualità, poiché, essendo la Conoscenza della maturità avanzata di un epoca, proprio come precisa Aristotele nel passo su citato, è l’ultima àncora di salvezza sia per coloro che vogliono percorrere tale unica ed ineludibile Via dello Spirito, per tornare ad essere, come precisa Evola, quanto meno e come base di partenza, uomini, sia per la conservazione e la trasmissione dei Fondamenti della stessa da “tràdere” cioè consegnare a coloro i quali saranno i protagonisti del ciclo successivo: non altro concetto ha, infatti, espresso lo stesso Hegel quando ha definito la filosofia il Sapere del meriggio che nasce quando s’invola la nottola di Minerva!

Ci chiediamo, alla fine di questa nostra riflessione, la ragione per cui la Tradizione magico-arcaica, la Sapienza antica, il Platonismo come eterno Idealismo, il Logos di Evola come quello di tutti i Sapienti che nei secoli e nei millenni hanno rivelato sempre e soltanto la medesima Cosa, avente ad “oggetto” il Pensiero pensante che è già e da sempre Pensiero pensato e cioè il Divino come Mondo che ritorna ciclicamente e liberamente, in quanto sapientemente, in se stesso, appaiono tanto irrimediabilmente inattuali da essere invece così indiscutibilmente attuali; la risposta a tale domanda risiede nella natura protervamente materialista e quindi antiumana di questa epoca in cui dello Spirito nulla si sa e si deve sapere, dell’Anima non se ne deve parlare  più, affidando il suo semantema residuo ed umbratile a forme di stregonerie e ciarlatanerie definitesi, molto appropriatamente, “psicoanalisi” (vedi J. Evola, L’infezione psicanalista, Quaderni della Fondazione Evola, Napoli 2012); il corpo  è ignorato in quanto “pensato” come un assemblaggio di pezzi meccanici da riparare e, nel caso, da sostituire; epoca in cui, infine, ci si è fatti convincere che l’uomo non sia e non debba essere altro che un “tubo digerente” avente solo una finalità: il disciplinato e silenzioso consumo planetario, in quanto “naturalmente”  privo di idee, sentimenti e passioni,  che pericolosamente abbiano o conservino qualcosa che ricordi l’umano; nessun Discorso, religioso o filosofico contemporaneo, che può pur apparire radicale e liberatorio lo può mai essere, in verità e nella dimensione universale, così come lo è manifestamente e dall’eternità la Luce della Tradizione, per la semplice ragione che tutti i “discorsi” che non appartengono alla sua Verità, appartengono alla Modernità, come categoria dello Spirito; e non si può nemmeno tentare di superare l’effetto coniugandolo con la sua causa!

Solo la Scienza dello Spirito, l’atto supremo ineludibile di Rivolta contro il mondo moderno, può aprire gli occhi,  prima dell’anima e poi dello Spirito, dell’uomo della presente età, sì da fargli riacquistare la stazione eretta che, come insegna Platone, gli consente di guardare il Cielo e quindi gli Dei!

Di una sola cosa, comunque, siamo certi e serenamente consapevoli e quindi convinti: il potere unico della Chiesa dogmatica tecno-finanziaria del capitalismo mondialista, apparentemente trionfante al crepuscolo del presente ciclo, ha di fronte, alle spalle ed intorno a sé medesimo, una sola ed invincibile nonché semplice e luminosa Verità, espressa da Julius Evola nei termini seguenti: “…Tutto si potrà fare sull’uomo e nell’uomo ma mai strappare dal fondo del suo animo la presenza del Divino!…”.

Giandomenico Casalino

 

BIBLIOGRAFIA ESSENZIALE

Albanese L., La tradizione platonica, Roma 1993.

Albert K., Sul concetto di filosofia in Platone, Mi­lano 1991.

Beierwaltes W., Platonismo e idealismo, Bologna 1987.

Boutroux E., Jacob Boehme e l’origine dell’idea­lismo tedesco, Milano 2006.

Casalino G., La prospettiva di Hegel, Lecce 2005.

Casalino G., L’origine. Contributi per la filosofia della spiritualità

indoeuropea,Genova 2009.

Casalino G., La conoscenza suprema. Essere la concretezza luminosa

dell’Idea, Genova 2012.

Casalino G., Sul fondamento. Pensare l’Assoluto come Risultato, Genova 2014.

Carbonara C., Hegel platonico e teologo. Quaderni contemporanei, 6, 1971.

Di Vona P., Metafisica e politica in Evola, Padova 2000, pp. 55 ss.

Evola J., (a cura di), Introduzione alla Magia, Roma 1969, volume I, pp. 56 ss.; 364 ss.

Evola J., La tradizione ermetica, Roma 1998.

Hadot P., Esercizi spirituali e filosofia antica, To­rino 1988.

Hegel G.G.F., Scienza della Logica, Bari 2001.

Hegel G.G.F., Fenomenologia dello spirito, Firenze 1960.

Heidegger M., “Hegel e i greci” in Idem, Segna­via, Milano 1987.

Kramer H., Platone e ifondamenti della metafisica, Milano 1989, pp. 285 ss.

Lugarini L., Hegel e la tradizione arcaica, Il Pen­siero, voI. XXXII, 1992.

Magee G.A., Hegel e la Tradizione Ermetica, Roma 2013.

Plotino, Enneadi, VI, 9,40.

Platone, Lettera VII

Platone, Alcibiade Maggiore.

Ponsetto A., L’anima religiosa della filosofia, Lecce 2000.

Proclo, Teologia Platonica.

Ruggenini M., Il Dio assente. La filosofia è l’espe­rienza del Divino, Milano 1997.

 

The Differentiated Man

The Differentiated Man

Ex: http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com

In the days when I used to post on white nationalist websites one of the most recurring themes that people would argue about is the declining levels of Aryans vis a vis other races. I argued then as I argue now ratios are not relevant. Lower animals and races of men will breed at a faster rate than higher species or races. Often the reason for this is the higher mortality rate in such species and races. This fact may also be observed amongst the soci-economic classes which are a bastardised and commercialised version of the ancient traditional Aryan caste system (the two are not to be confused or even compared!).  Individuals of lesser education (not merely formal education but general awareness and ability) tend to breed without restraint and with no consideration as to whether they (or the tax payer) can afford such indiscriminate coupling!

Of course I am not here referring to that tiny and select minority of individuals who are spiritually and racially aware who may breed in large numbers with suitable mates for the right reasons. The people I am referring to in the previous paragraph are those who live entirely by instinct and whose days are spent gratifying their every bodily need or desire. Such people are little better than the beasts of the field and I would not expect them to read blogs such as this so forgive me for lecturing to the converted! These belong to von Liebenfels' Affenmenschen (apelings) referred to in his Theozoology. The move from the rural economies of the past to the Industrial Revolution which began in the 18th century in England caused a migration of part of the rural population to the emerging industrial towns and cities to become nothing more than factory wage slaves. The new capitalist bougeoisie needed as many men (and women) as they could find to work in their sweat shops. The same impulse that drove forward the Industrial Revolution was also responsible for the creation of the British Empire which benefitted no one apart from the wealthy (and certainly not the conquered natives!).

The populations of the industrial towns and cities bred like rats but they needed to as the infant mortality rate was extremely high. Their poorly paid labour was needed by the capitalists of the day (nothing much has changed). The problem with having an expanding proletariat is that the individual monetary worth of the worker is reduced proportionately. This is why countries like Britain welcome immigrant labour because their expectations are low and this creates economic competition for British workers. Employers can pick and choose and pay a pittance for a person's toil. For this reason despite the government's protestations they have done abolutely nothing to stem the flow of immigration (legal and otherwise) and indeed the problem has got worse over the last 4 years (if such a thing were possible). Low paid workers and cannon fodder for illegal wars will always be in demand by this corrupt system.

Thus a capitalist economy relies for the production of ever increasing wealth for the 1% on a large mass of labour. Capitalism encourages and fuels population explosions. Babies are born destined to become unimportant cogs in this monstrous and inhuman machine. This and only this is the value of the 'family', much lauded by the government's MPs as women become nothing but battery hens for future workers. Nothing else is of importance. With these thoughts in mind we come to the writings of Julius Evola:

"The differentiated man cannot feel part of a 'society' like the present one, which is formless and has sunk to the level of purely material, economic, 'physical' values, and moreover lives at this level and follows its insane course under the sign of the absurd. Therefore, apoliteia requires the most decided resistance to any social myth. Here it is not just a matter of its extreme, openly collectivist forms, in which the person is not recognised as significant except as a fragment of a class or party or, as in the Marxist-Soviet area, is denied any existence of his own outside the society, so that personal destiny and happiness distinct from those of the collective do not even exist. We must equally reject the more general and bland idea of 'sociability' that today often functions as a slogan even in the so-called free world, after the decline of the ideal of the true state. The differentiated man feels absolutely outside of society, he recognises no moral claim that requires his inclusion in an absurd system; he can understand not only those who are outside, but even those who are against 'society'-meaning against this society." (Ride the Tiger. A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul)

The End of American History

The End of American History

By Alexander Jacob

Lecture delivered at the IV Encontro Internacional Evoliano, Sao Paulo, Brazil, September 10, 2014.

Francis Fukuyuma, the Japanese-American intellectual spokesman for the Jewish American Neoconservative movement, proclaimed in his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man that liberal democracy was the final socio-political form since earlier alternatives such as Fascism and Communism had proven to be ideological failures, and liberty and equality had now been established as universal norms. 

Fukuyama’s view of history moving in progressive political phases was of course first popularized in the nineteenth century by German thinkers like Hegel, Marx, and their followers, who sought to discern historiographical patterns in the vagaries of military and economic fortune and to either celebrate or revolt against the current political status of their own nation, in their case Germany.

To be sure, Hegel was somewhat more elevated than Marx in supposing the course of history to be the varying manifestations of a developing Weltgeist, or world-spirit, whereas Marx’s historiography was ruled by mere economic alterations. Nevertheless, the falsehood of even Hegel’s philosophy of history is made clear to anyone who considers the history of the country which is actually promoting liberal democracy now as a universal norm, America.

In America there has been, from its inception as an independent nation, hardly any deviation from liberal democratic goals, and Communism and Fascism have not only been absent there in their European forms but are, if ever they emerge, quickly absorbed into the unchanging liberal democratic framework of the nation. Actually what American society represents is a sort of ahistoric, shadow-communist utopia, where private individuals strive ever more strenuously to possess the means of production and to resist the interference of the state in public affairs. There is little also to distinguish the Communist ideal of equality from the Liberal.

When Fukuyama suggests that we have come to the “end of history,” therefore, what he means is that the world that has undergone genuine historical changes has now been conquered by a country that began and continues as a utopia that is as little capable of historical change as of real progress, that is, progress understood not in the technological but in the traditional sense of the development of the spiritual, intellectual and social attitudes of a people.

The “end of history” is indeed a phenomenon that is peculiar to America as a British colony that has had tenuous connections with the naturally developing history of the Old World. While most countries founded by colonial settlement manage to maintain and develop the culture of their mother nation to a certain extent — as Australia, for example, has done — America began and developed at a time of Protestant and Puritan revolt against the ancient Catholic monarchical traditions of Britain.

It is important therefore to consider the phenomenon of Puritanism which provoked the English Civil War during which America was settled and to notice also the close connection between Christian Puritanism and Judaism. We may recall in this context that the Jews, who had been officially expelled from England in 1290 by Edward I, were allowed by the Puritan dictator Cromwell in the 1650s to return from Holland, where they had been conducting a flourishing financial business, and throughout the Commonwealth the Jews were held in high esteem by the Puritans.

The similarity of the capitalist ethics developed by the Puritans and that of the Jews was noted already in 1911 by the German sociologist Werner Sombart in his work Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben. Sombart maintained that the “Protestant” ethic that Max Weber had focused on in his 1905 work, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, was indeed to be identified specifically as a Puritan one that should be equated to Judaism. For, as Sombart explained, “In both will be found . . . the close relationship between religion and business, the arithmetical conception of sin, and, above all, the rationalization of life.”

With the American Civil War of 1861-65, the last links with monarchical England that had persisted in the pro-English Confederate South were cut by the victory of the Federalist North. Then, in the aftermath of the Civil War, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Christian religious aspect of the original Puritan work-ethic of the Americans was seriously damaged by the large-scale influx of Jews from Central and Eastern Europe who succeeded in modulating the philo-Semitic Puritan character of American capitalism into a fully Jewish one.

As Sombart pointed out, the Jews had indeed been active in American economic life already from the seventeenth century and had gradually come to monopolize many branches of American commerce such as the wheat, tobacco, and cotton trade. But we must note that with the increased immigration of eastern Jews at the end of the nineteenth century and the promotion of Jewish finance capitalism, what remained of the original Puritan work-ethic and concomitant frugality in the American economy was soon dissipated, while the only vestige of the dissident Puritanical religiosity that survived was its stubborn anti-clericalism.

With the replacement of the Puritan veneration of industry by the parasitical reign of finance, the Jewish tendency to economic utopianism which manifested itself in the twentieth century as totalitarian Communism in Russia, Eastern Europe and the Far East was transformed in the new “promised land” of the Jews into the totalitarian liberalism of the “American Dream.” The capitalism promoted by the Jews steadily strengthened the nation’s commitment to individualistic freedom and material aggrandizement rather than to the civilizational aims of the old monarchies and empires. Such a nation could naturally not evolve or even acquire a human history. Instead of producing examples of human greatness it could only boast of a certain number of tycoons and millionaire entertainers, and instead of historical development it could only experience periodic economic booms and recessions.

Fukuyama himself attempts, in his book, to introduce a Nietzschean question into his glorification of liberal democracy by raising the specter of the “last man,” or the average American-like man whose life is materially sated and spiritually meaningless. But with naïve optimism he maintains that such an intolerably vacuous life will certainly be mastered in a liberal democracy by man’s spiritedness, a human characteristic that will inevitably rebel against such a monotonous existence. This spiritedness is the same as what Plato called the middle part of the tripartite soul, between the rational and the animal parts of it. In Fukuyama’s view, in the liberal democratic system, instead of its reappearance in violent strife, as in the case of nationalist or imperialistic states, there will be an absorption of this passionate energy into sports, business and political shows like election campaigns.

Fukuyama’s belief in such social engineering as liberal democracy universally aims at ignores the vast difference between the states of the Old World and the American. Indeed, the Neoconservative enterprise propagated by Fukuyama serves as a timely reminder of the incompatibility of American with genuinely European systems of political thought. The American social values that are being imposed on Europe and the rest of the world through economic and military means are essentially alien ones and are neither likely to take root easily nor endure. For, unlike the American nation, European and other older nations have a historical vitality that cannot be suffocated by American avarice. In order to illustrate this fact I shall survey here the characteristic political traditions of the Indo-Europeans and the contradictory intellectual movements that have distorted these traditions in the course of modern history.

To understand the traditional Indo-European social ethos, I may begin with the paradigmatic Āryan conception of society discernible in ancient India. The famous ‘caste system’ of the Indians is, unlike the modern western ‘class system’, an entirely spiritual one and men are recognized not by their economic status but by their hereditary spiritual capacity. The four Indian social orders are represented symbolically as the head, arms, thighs and feet of the primordial cosmic anthropomorphic form of the divine Soul. This Cosmic Man, or Purusha, was itself formed, first ideally and then manifestly, through the spiritual desire, the Soul, of the godhead, or the One.

The manifestation of the Soul in Indian religious philosophy is said to be due to its three inherent forms of energy, sattva, rajas and tamas, the first  representing pure existence, the second  motion and the third inertia (Brahmānda Purāna I,i,3,12). Since there is an intimate and unavoidable correspondence between the macrocosm and the human microcosm, these three energies appear embodied in differing degrees among humans too, the sattvic element most fully in the brāhmans, the rājasic in the warriors or kshatriyas,  and the tāmasic in the vaisyas and shudras, particularly the latter. This is the original spiritual and psychological basis of all hierarchy. The brāhman owes his preeminent position in society to his superhuman spiritual power. The name “Brahman” of the deity who represents the Intellectual light of the cosmos, itself derives from a word denoting creative power and it is the privilege and duty of the brāhman to represent this creative power while the kshatriyas, or political rulers and warriors, only serve to maintain this creative power both within the land and also in the universe. The brāhman and kshatriya thus constitute the paradigmatic Indo-European polity centered on the dual organs of what in European politics are called Church and State.

If we turn to the Greek philosophers, we find that in Plato and Aristotle the state is again constantly conceived of in terms of the constitution of the universal and individual soul. According to Plato, the soul is “that which moves itself” (Phaedrus 246a) and is naturally prior to body since it “is what governs all the changes and modifications of bodies” (Laws 892a).

Just as in ancient India, the soul, or psyche, in Plato’s Republic, Bk.IV, is divided into three parts, a higher rational or spiritual part (called logistikon) corresponding to the Indian sattva, a middle passionate one (called thymoeides) correspondng to rajas, and a lower sensual part (called epithymetikon) corresponding to tamas. Since society is as organic a phenomenon as the individuals of which it is composed, in a state too the more the rational aspect predominates over the passionate the closer it approximates to the ideal political form. But the discipline of the lower desires by the dictates of reason is to be found only in a few and these are the “best born and the best educated” men (Republic, IV), whereas the untrained and untamed passions are to be found in abundance among children, women and the lower classes, which form the most numerous section of society. The aristocratic “guardians” of Plato’s ideal republic are therefore required to be true philosophers and will not be drawn from the inferior classes.

Aristotle continues Plato’s spiritually oriented political theory in his Ethica Nichomachea, where he declares that the main aim of politics is the attainment of the good of the nation. The higher classes of a nation will comprise the full citizens who will assume the military and administrative, including priestly, offices of the land. The legislators must govern with a clear knowledge of the spiritual constitution of man, that is, the rational and passionate elements that Plato had discerned in the individual soul. And it is the duty of the legislators to ensure the predominance of the higher aspect of the soul over the lower.

Platonic principles reappear in the European Renaissance in the writings of aristocratic thinkers like Francesco Guicciardini and Jean Bodin. According to Guicciardini — who offered a critique of Machiavelli in one of his works, Considerations on the Discourses of Machiavelli – the chief reason of the superiority of a prince and an aristocracy to the people is that they are not subject to pernicious passions, such as, notably, envy. The French Renaissance philosopher, Jean Bodin — who is notable for his championing of monarchical absolutism — also based his defence of the latter on a similar Platonic basis. For genuine monarchy is, according to him, derived from the Divine Law and the monarch is the earthly image of God. Care should be taken that the religious foundation of the state is never brought into doubt and religious leaders must act as censors of the state in order to maintain moral discipline in it.

It is at this juncture in the history of the world that the revolutionary anti-monarchical ideas of the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the French Revolution appear. If we study the American Bill of Rights of 1789 we realise that it was based largely on the English Bill of Rights of 1689 promulgated by the (originally Puritan) English Parliament after the “Glorious” Protestant Revolution of 1688 in order to curb the powers traditionally invested in the formerly Catholic monarchs of England.

One of the most influential English thinkers of the seventeenth century and one generally considered to be the father of liberal democracy, John Locke, was also a Puritan. Locke was a champion of the separation of the Church and State and had a profound influence on the American ‘Founding Fathers’ such as Thomas Jefferson. The American Bill of Rights, based on the British parliamentarian one, is especially notable for its dissociation (in the First Amendment) of the American state from any official religion. What had begun in England as a rejection of Catholicism was thus turned in America into a rejection of all official religion. Combined with this fear of theocracy was the Puritanical devotion to individual freedom and industry which caused the Americans to view citizenship as a status defined primarily by liberty and citizens as economic units of production not unlike those of the later Communist utopia of Marx.

A little later, in the middle of the eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau propagated in France the Lockean conception of government as a social “contract” directed  by the “volonté générale” of the people which would reduce the inequalities springing from subservience to the state. However, a robust answer to Rousseau’s doctrine of the “social contract” was offered immediately after the fateful French Revolution by the English political philosopher Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), where he pointed out that “the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some such low concern . . .”

And since the people cannot be relied upon to follow any “general will” towards the attainment of the good of the nation, Burke proposed a natural aristocracy as the only viable government of a nation. A strong nation is also necessarily a religious one for, as Burke said, all politicians indeed act on behalf of “the one great Master, Author and Founder of society,” namely God.

This vital role of religion in the conduct of states was reiterated in post-revolutionary France too by the French monarchist Count Joseph de Maistre who noted in his “Essai sur les principes generateurs des constitutions politiques et des autres institutions humaines” (1809) that “the duration of empires has always been proportionate to the degree of influence the religious element gained in the political constitution.” Indeed, the truly political laws of a land are synonymous with the religious feelings of the people and the “instant [man] separates himself from God to act alone . . . he does not lose power . . . but his activity is negative and leads only to destruction.” To follow the doctrines of Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau and Voltaire would thus result in a return to a state of anarchy and degeneracy.

In Germany around the same time philosophers like Kant and Fichte were beginning to point to the crucial significance of the ‘State’ as the means of enforcing an enlightened government. Kant took as his point of departure the excellence of Divine Law in relation to Natural Law, so that Reason, or the Moral Law, was elevated far above the mindless workings of Nature. To establish this rule of the Moral Law on earth, Kant proposed a supremely powerful state that would control all religious and commercial offices in the land.

The leader of the state can never be a democratic representative of the people since democracy inevitably results in a despotism. While Kant favored a monarchical republic, Johann Fichte advocated a Platonic philosopher-statesman who is at once a political and religious leader of his nation. Like a Platonic “guardian,” such a statesman, “in his estimate of mankind looks beyond that which they are in the actual world to that which they are in the Divine Idea . . .” (The Nature of the Scholar, Lecture VIII). The monarch will bear the responsibility of the realization of the inner freedom of the individuals within his nation. It is important to note in this context Fichte’s emphasis that the aim of all society is “ever-increasing ennoblement of the human race, that is, to set it more and more at liberty from the bondage of Nature,” just as the aim of all culture is “to subject Nature . . . to Reason.” In order to counteract the spurious freedom that especially the young hanker after, Fichte insists that a new system of education must be developed which “essentially destroys the freedom of will . . . and produces on the contrary strict necessity in the decisions of the will” (Addresses to the German Nation, Address II).

The state continues to be glorified in the Idealistic philosophy of Hegel, for whom the state, and especially the Prussian state, is the “embodiment of rational freedom realizing and recognizing itself in an objective form” (Lectures on the Philosophy of History). And in the Prussian nationalism of Heinrich von Treitschke, the state is glorified to an extent that it becomes a sort of substitute for God. Treitschke takes care to stress that “the consciousness of national unity is dependent on a common bond of religion, for religious sentiment is one of the fundamental forces of the human character.” (Politics, I) Unfortunately the interference of Jewish elements in German politics had disturbed the traditional spiritual ordering of society by encouraging “the coexistence of several religions within one nationality, involving an irreconcilable and ultimately intolerable difference of outlook upon life.”

Directly opposed to these several statist doctrines of the German Idealists and nationalists is the doctrine of Communism which was propounded in the middle of the nineteenth century by the Jewish political economist Karl Marx. The radical difference between the Marxist view of the world and the Indo-European is already evident in the fact that Marx’s system was based on an atheistic materialism that totally denied the existence of any spiritual reality whatsoever, and all metaphysics in general, in favour of a dialectical socio-economics that attempted to understand the transformations of society according to its changing modes of production. Unlike Hegel who had justified history as the changing manifestations of a quasi-divine world-spirit, Marx wished to ‘create’ history by focusing on what he considered its essential economic activities. As he put it in The German Ideology (Ch.1):

Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness . . . have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.

However, the Communist system, for all its apparent evolutionary aspirations, is an anti-scientific, utopian construct aiming at an anti-human classless and stateless society based on the common ownership of the means of production. In this delusional sociological experiment Marx focused especially on class-struggle, or the conflict between capital and labor, as the primary instrument of historical change. By granting economic, social and political equality to all citizens Marx believed that the social awareness and discipline of every individual would naturally be increased. And, while he tolerated a representative parliamentary political system as a transitional stage, his Communist utopia aimed at a final dissolution of the state apparatus (which is what induces hierarchy and inequality) at the most advanced state of Communism, when the people would become fully self-governing.

Marxism is thus the fullest expression of a world-view that is diametrically opposed to the traditional Indo-European ordering of society according to spiritual character which we have observed in ancient India, Greece and the rest of Europe until the advent of philo-Judaic Puritanism in the middle of the seventeenth century. Marxism is naturally also opposed to the state structure that supports the religious and warrior aristocracy that founded, constitute and preserve the nation. It may be noted here that although modern liberal democracies pretend to abhor the Communist ideology, the arrogation of political authority in the West by the legislature and its prime ministerial or presidential leader represents a major step towards the same dissolution of the concepts of state and sovereignty that Communism too strives for.

Marx’s political economic theories were strongly criticized at the turn of the century by many notable German thinkers like Eugen Dühring and Oswald Spengler, but I should like to highlight here one of the most metaphysically structured political philosophical responses to Marxism – namely, the system of the Italian Fascist philosopher, Giovanni Gentile. According to Gentile, the basis of evil, exactly as in Plato and Plotinus, is Matter, or Nature, which is opposed to Spirit and represents as it were, “not merely moral and absolute nullity [but] the impenetrable chaos of brute nature, mechanism, spiritual darkness, falsehood and evil, all the things that man is forever fighting against” (Genesis and Structure of Society).

Gentile points out that the economic life focused on by Marx is marked by a utilitarianism akin to the instinctual life of animals and is a life of slavery to matter, whereas politics should be a means to spiritual freedom. While Marxism aimed at the worst sort of social organization, “the utilitarian, materialistic and hence egoistic conception of life understood as a realm of rights to be vindicated, instead of as an arena of duties to be performed by sacrificing oneself to an ideal,” Gentile’s own ideal of Fascism is based on a metaphysical understanding of society as emerging from a Kantian ideal of a “transcendent society” which is produced by the interaction of the ego and its pure object, the alter ego. It is this conception of a ‘transcendent society’ which makes man a ‘political animal’, as Aristotle had earlier suggested. The gradual self-realization of an individual necessarily entails the enlightenment of his objective counterparts, the other members of society, so that the nation as a whole begins to approach the ideal “transcendent society.”

Indeed, for Gentile, as for Fichte, the proper intellectual activity of the enlightened individual is the comprehension of the whole of mankind or of the Idea of it. And the ‘State’ is the objective embodiment of the personality of the individuals constituting it or the “universal common aspect” of their will. True political liberty is therefore possible only when the individuals that constitute the state become free through the realization of the universal aspect of their personality.

The State in its universal aspect is indeed an image of the Divine Will and the laws of the State must ever be in consonance with the Divine Law. Religion naturally is not an external aid to the will of the state but the constitutive element of it. The prime task of the state is to foster the dual development of individuals and of the society. Gentile’s project of state education is therefore governed by a keen awareness of the essentially moral nature of all education. Those concerned with culture as the self-development of the individuals constituting a state must, he says, be “critical of all knowledge that man does not need for the actual realization of his human nature and for the growth and health of his moral character” (Genesis and Structure of Society). In short, they must be critical of all knowledge that is not genuinely human.

Gentile interestingly also distinguishes between two kinds of treatment of political history. True history is not that which observes the “brute fact” but rather “the inward act of the spirit” always considered from the point of view of the “transcendent state,” the “higher ideal that operates as an end in the actual life of the state” (Ibid.). This transcendent state is indeed the divine model of an earthly state and therefore a constant unchanging norm to which the temporal changes of a state approximate in varying degrees throughout its history.

In this Fascist view of history and of the philosophical significance of the state we finally obtain a corrective to the historiographical errors of Hegelians like Fukuyama who raise the political status quo to an ideal after superficially surveying the external changes of a state as also to the errors of the Marxists who conjure up utopias from these same changes. All of these thinkers ignore the transcendent or divine aspect of statecraft, which, as we have observed in our initial survey of ancient Indian and Greek philosophy, starts with the constitution of the psyche or soul itself and aims, through a sacred kingship or an enlightened autocracy, at the psychological improvement of the individuals that comprise the state. Materialistic societies governed by economically oriented political doctrines, whether Puritan or Marxist, are incapable of any real historical development because the spiritual element of man which alone is capable of movement and development is either poorly understood or wholly dismissed.

Fukuyama’s historiographic thesis is thus merely a description of the abortive state of America itself, which has through its history gradually substituted materialistic and economic principles of statecraft for the spiritual ones that originally governed all European monarchies, including the British. In considering this American problem, we cannot afford to ignore the fateful role that Jewry have played in the history of the West, for the re-entry of the Jews into England during the Puritan revolution is linked, psychologically, to the capitalist career of the new American state just as the Jewish economic utopia of Karl Marx lurks behind the liberal democratic dreams of contemporary Americans. Indeed, all modern political theories that aim at a dissolution of the state or of the leading religious institution of a nation — whether these theories are called Libertarian or Anarchist — must be recognized as derivatives of the defective Jewish economic mentality.

This mentality can, and should, be fully replaced by genuinely Indo-European political doctrines that begin not with contractual promises to the masses of liberty and equality and plenty but rather with the obligations of the leaders of a nation and of the State to actually improve the human psychological condition, or culture, of these masses. Both the State and its leading religious institution — in the case of the West, the Church — must therefore be strengthened in their national role and their alliance must be consolidated. This will naturally entail the exclusion of all anti-statist and anti-clerical elements from national government and education. The philosophical guidelines for the urgently required regeneration of nations are clearly available in the long tradition of European conservative philosophy that I have pointed to and particularly in the most recent example of Gentile. Of course, I am aware that Monarchism, Fascism and the Church are all equally abhorrent to those who today follow Judaized America in its various utopian adventures, but it is well to bear in mind that the price of utopianism is the end of history.

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/the-end-of-american-history/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Fukuyama.jpg