En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

vendredi, 27 mars 2020

Evola and Italian Philosophy, 1925–49: Three Biographical and Bibliographical Essays


Evola and Italian Philosophy, 1925–49: Three Biographical and Bibliographical Essays

by Gianfranco de Turris, Stefano Arcella & Alessandro Barbera

Translation by Fergus Cullen

The following essays all appeared in Vouloir 119–121 (1996), the supplement to the revue Orientations, edited by Robert Steuckers. They centre on Julius Evola’s relations with the two major figures of Italian philosophy in the interwar period.

In “Evola, ultime tabou?” (pp. 1–3), Gianfranco de Turris asks if the rehabilitation enjoyed by such philosophers as Giovanni Gentile, previously denounced as Fascist, might be afforded to Evola. He briefly sketches the case in his favour: unlike the marginal crank of post-War imagination, Evola seems to have maintained relations with such figures of the first rank as Gentile and Benedetto Croce. In “Gentile/Evola: une liaison ami/ennemi…” (pp. 3–5) Stefano Arcella examines Evola’s fertile collaboration with Gentile and Ugo Spirito on the Enciclopedia Italiana. And in “Quand Benedetto Croce ‘sponsorisait’ Evola” (pp. 5–7) Alessandro Barbera investigates the Croce connection, looking in some detail at the correspondence between Evola, Croce, and the publisher Laterza.

French originals:




PDF of this translation:



Gianfranco de Turris

Evola: the Last taboo?

by Gianfranco de Turris

gdtlivre.jpgWe will surely remember 1994 better than 1984, which Orwell immortalised by writing his celebrated apocalyptic book predicting an ultra-totalitarian world in which we all would have been irredeemably crushed. We will not remember it solely for the political event of 27 March in Italy, but above all for the consequences that this “reversal” might (I insist on the conditional!) have in the cultural sphere. Whatever one may thing of the victory of Berlusconi and his allies, it has already had a first result: the organisation of a colloquium dedicated to the personality of Giovanni Gentile; it was held in Rome on 20 and 21 May 1994 on the initiative of the leftist municipal council (which does honour to the Italian left, as does the other colloquium it dedicated to Nietzsche). We remember he whom we always defined as the “philosopher of Fascism,” fifty years after his death, when he was assassinated by a commando of communist partisans in Florence on 15 April 1944. After having beaten a long and sinuous intellectual course, many post-Marxist philosophers, such as Colletti, Marramao and Cacciari, claimed him for an authentic figure of the left, at least in a decent part of his work.

So Gentile recovers all his dignity for the “official” culture in Italy: of course, this concerns first of all Gentile the philosopher, and not the man and political militant. All the same, his rehabilitation as a philosopher marks a step forward in the liberation of spirits. So the last taboo for Italian intellectuals remains Julius Evola, as Pierluigi Battista nicely put it in the columns of Tuttolibri. Now, this year we also commemorate the twentieth anniversary of Evola’s death (11 June 1974). For Gentile, Italian official culture has at last come to accept, after a half-century and only some years before the year 2000, the position and importance of the “actualist” and Fascist philosopher. For Evola, on the contrary, a silence is always held, even is, imperceptibly, one feels that something is in the process of changing.

Luciferian Dilettante

Evola, in official culture, is thrown from one extreme to the other: on the one hand, he’s a demon, the Devil, an almost Luciferian personage, an ultra-racist to whom salvation is never to be granted; on the other, he’s culture’s sock-puppet, the inexact dilettante, unscientific and superficial, a clown of esotericism, “il Divino Otelma.” In interesting ourselves in him, we then risk toppling into the laughable, unless a more authorised voice begins to speak of him.

So there is still much work to be done on Evola, whether it be as a thinker of multiple interests, as an organiser of colloquia and promoter of intellectual initiatives between the Wars, as a man of culture and innumerable contacts, who received many suggestions from his contemporaries and gave in his turn.

During the twenty years that have passed since his death, few things have been done on his work and person in Italy; and these were the work of a small number of those who had always referred to Evola. We’ve found neither the time nor the manpower. It’s a bitter truth; but it’s so. It suffices to consider archival research: to reconstitute the facts and ideas, to fill in the “voids” in the life and in the evolution of Evolian thought, we need the documents; and these are still not all archived. The documents exist: it suffices to go and search where one thinks they might be found…


For example, we don’t have access to the complete documentation on the relations between Evola and the Italian philosophical world of the ’20s and ’30s: Croce, Gentile, Spirito, Tilgher… We only finally know what Evola recounts of himself in his “spiritual autobiography,” The Path of Cinnabar. Ultimately, we know what we can deduce of his positions on diverse philosophical systems and on what we surmise intuitively. In general, we only know the views and opinions on Evola of the historians and academics who have especially studied that period of Italian culture: and they say that Evola was an isolated, marginal figure; that his ideas were not taken into consideration; that he was a singular, if not folkloric, figure. But do these opinions really correspond to reality?

We believe that we can today affirm that things were not so simple: that Evola was more relevant in his epoch than we’ve believed him to be. And we affirm this on the basis of a series of indications, hidden until today. The Roman weekly L’Italia settimanale is cataloguing these indications for the first time in a special supplement, in the hope of provoking debate and research.

Sponsored by Croce?

Evola maintained far more complex relations with Croce and Gentile that we’ve believed for many decades. Can we imagine an Evola “sponsored” by Croce? An Evola, collaborator with the Enciclopedia Italiana, patronised by the Mussolinian regime and directed by Gentile? An Evola close to Adriano Tilgher? An Evola in direct contact with Ugo Spirito? We can now divine that these relations were pursued more than we imagined them; but we have neither formal proofs nor the documents that definitively attest to them. The “isolated figure” was not, ultimately, isolated; the marginalised personage, as well, was not marginalised as we wished to say; the intellectual who, under Fascism, had amounted to not much, or missed out on everything, had been, ultimately, of more impact that we’d thought him. I think that we must seek out and recognise our fault: that of not having contemplated this sooner, and having given a truncated picture of Evola; with a complete vision of Evolian words and deeds, we may be able to refute many commonplaces. This won’t be possible unless the Croce Archives at Naples and the Gentile Foundation at Rome agree to let us consult the documents they hold and that concern the relations of Croce and Gentile with Evola.

Better late than never. The future will tell, after our work is done, whether Evola will always be, for progressivist culture, a taboo, will be the Devil, a clown…


Stefano Arcella

Gentile and Evola: Friends and Enemies

by Stefano Arcella

The relations between Evola and Gentile have always been seen from the perspective of conflict, from the perspective of profound differences between the respective philosophical orientations of the two men. Evola, in his speculative period (1923–7), elaborated a conception of the absolute individual, representing a decisive overcoming of idealist philosophy in all its multiple formulations—notably those of Croce’s idealism and Gentile’s actualism. Evola, in reaching the end of his speculations, already approached the threshold of tradition, understood and perceived as openness to transcendence, and towards esotericism (as an experimental method for the knowledge and realisation of the self). His speculative period had thus been a necessary step on his path towards Tradition.

For all that, in the history of the relations between these two thinkers, there is an element that has remained utterly unknown before now: if we make ourselves aware of it, we acquire a clearer, more direct and more complete vision of the bond that united these two men—enemies to all appearances. This element is the correspondence between Evola and Gentile, which we can now consule, thanks to the courtesy the Fondazione Gentile has shown. This correspondence dates to the years 1927–9, to the time during which Evola directed the revue Ur, a publication aimed at working out a science of the Self, and which was subsequently titled a “revue of esoteric science.”

It was at this time that Gentile, with his collaborators, prepared a work of great scientific importance: the Enciclopedia Italiana, of which he was the first director. The first volume of this gargantuan work, commissioned by the Mussolinian regime, was produced in 1929. The following tomes appeared quarterly.

The most significant letter, at least from an historico-cultural perspective, is that sent by Evola to Gentile on 2 May 1928 (the year in which Imperialismo pagano was published). This letter is on paper with the letterhead of the revue Ur; it thanks Gentile heartily for having acted upon his wish to collaborate on the Enciclopedia Italiana; and Evola, in what follows, makes reference to his friend Ugo Spirito regarding the areas that might fall within his expertise.

This collaboration is confirmed in a letter of 17 May 1929, in which Evola reminds Gentile that the latter entrusted the writing of certain entries to Ugo Spirito, who in turn entrusted them to him. In this letter, Evola doesn’t specify precisely which entries are concerned, which makes our researches more difficult. Currently, we have identified with only one entry with certitude, relating to the term “Atanor,” signed with the initials “G.E.” (Giulio Evola).

These points can be verified in the volume Enciclopedia Italiana: Come e da chi è stata fatta, published under the auspices of the Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana in Milan in 1947. Evola is mentioned in the list of collaborators (Evola, Giulio, p. 182); and also mentioned are the initials which he used to sign the entries of his expertise (G. Ev.), as well as the specialism in which his expertise was incorporated: “occultism.” This term designates the specialisation of the Traditionalist thinker, and not an entry in the Encyclopaedia. Furthermore, the citations, which this little introductory volume indicates beside the matter treated, suggest the volume on which Evola collaborated especially: it was vol. V, published in 1930, whose first entry was “Assi,” and last “Balso.”

Currently, we seek to identify precisely the notes prepared by Evola himself for this volume. We account for the fact that a good number of entries weren’t signed, and that the preparatory material for the Encyclopaedia must constantly be recategorised and put in order under the auspices of the Archivio Storico dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, because these masses of documents were dispersed in the course of the Second World War. Indeed, one part of the documentation had been transferred to Bergamo under the Social Republic.

Another element lets us verify Evola’s participation in this work of broad scope: Ugo Spirito mentions the name Evola in a text of 1947 among the writers of the Encyclopaedia in the domains of philosophy, economy and law. Identical indications are found in vol. V of 1930.

presentazione del libro  misteri antichi e pensiero vivente  di stefano arcella - interviene l'autore-3.jpg

On the basis of his data, further considerations are in order. The fact that Evola wrote to Gentile on paper with the Ur letterhead, on 2 May 1928, is not random.

Evola was not a man who acted at random, above all when he might be put in contact with a philosopher of Gentile’s standing, a figure of the first rank in the Italian cultural landscape of the era. Evola then didn’t present himself to the theoretician of actualism in a personal capacity, but as the representative of a cultural thread which found its expression in Ur, the revue of which he was the director. Evola hereby attempted to formalise esoteric studies and sciences within the bounds of the dominant culture, at the historical moment at which Mussolinian Fascism triumphed. This purpose is divined immediately when one knows that the discipline attributed especially to Evola in the Encyclopaedia was “occultism.”


Giovanni Gentile

Gentile then accepts Evola’s collaboration, which represents, in fact, an avowed recognition of the qualifications of the theoretician of the absolute individual, as well as an indication of the attention given by Gentile to the themes treated in Ur, beyond the convictions that oppose one man to the other, and the irreducible differences of a philosophical order that separate them. Evola’s collaboration on the Encyclopaedia directed by Gentile proves that the latter counted him among the first rank of scientific minds, the cultural prestige of which was incontestable in the Italy of that epoch. From these epistolary exchanges between Evola and Gentile, we can deduce, today, a lesson which the two philosophers bequeath us in concert: they both show themselves capable of harmoniously integrating coherences to which they are strangers—coherences which contradict their own principles—which attests to an openness of spirit and a propensity for dialogue; to fertile confrontation and to collaboration, even and above all with those who express a marked otherness in character and ideas. Coherence is a positive force: it is not the rigidity of him who shuts himself up in sterile isolation. A fair play upon which it suits to meditate at this moment, at which some shout their heads off for a new inquisition.

For fifty years, we have witnessed an uncritical, misguided and unfounded demonization of our two thinkers; we’ve observed a gulf of incomprehension, of barriers which, happily, we might begin to break today, in view of the processes of transformation at work in the world of culture. All the same, the degradation of cultural debate in the aftermath of anti-fascism or party spirit is an unhappy reality of our era. To reverse the trend, it suits to return the spotlight on these bonds between Evola and Gentile—between two philosophers belonging to entirely different and opposite schools—in order to launch a debate at the Italian national level; to re-examine the roots of our recent history; to recuperate what has been unjustly stifled since 1945 and scrubbed from our consciousness in a burning fever of damnatio memoriae.

In conclusion, besides the path that the consultation of the Laterza archives offers us to explore the relations between Croce and Evola, we would also like to consult the letters of Croce; but alas, the Croce Archives have told us in so many words that “those letters are not consultable.” These are politics diametrically opposed to those practiced by the Fondazione Gentile, which itself permits one to consult, without difficulty, the letters of which I’ve informed you.


Alessandro Barbero

When Benedetto Croce “Sponsored” Evola

by Alessandro Barbero

Julius Evola and Benedetto Croce. In appearance, these two thinkers are very distant from one another. That said, for a certain period of their coexistence, they were in contact. And it wasn’t an ephemeral episode, but a link of long standing, lasting for almost a decade, from 1925 to 1933. To be more precise, we should say that Croce, in this relation, played the part of “protector,” and Evola the role of “protégé.” This relation began when Evola entered the prestigious Areopagus of authors at the publisher Laterza of Bari.

In the ’30s, Evola published many works with Laterza, which have been reissued post-War. Now, today, we still don’t know the details of these links within the publisher. In fact, two researchers, Daniela Coli and Marco Rossi, have already furnished us in the past with intelligence on the triangular relation between Evola, Croce and the publisher Laterza. Daniela Coli approached the question in a work published ten years ago with Il Mulino (Croce, Laterza e la cultura europea, 1983). Marco Rossi, for his part, raised the question in a series of articles dedicated to the cultural itinerary of Julius Evola in the ’30s, and published in Renzo de Felice’s review Storia contemporanea (6, December 1991). In his autobiography, The Cinnabar Path (Scheiwiller, 1963), Evola evokes the relations he maintained with Croce, but tells us very little, ultimately: far less, in any case, than we can divine today. Evola wrote that Croce, in a letter, did him the honour of appraising one of his books: “Well ordered, and underpinned by reasoning quite exact.” And Evola adds that he knew Croce well, personally. The inquest leads us straight to the archives of the publishers at Bari, currently deposited at the State archives of that town, which might consent to furnish us with far more detailed indications as to the relations having united these two men.

The first of Evola’s letters that we find in Laterza’s house archives isn’t dated, but must trace to the end of June 1925. In this missive, the Traditionalist thinker replies to a preceding negative response, and pleads for the publication of his Teoria dell’individuo assoluto. He writes:

It is assuredly not a happy situation in which I find myself, I, the author, obliged to insist and to struggle for your attention on the serious character and interest of this work: I believe that the recommendation of Mr. Croce is a sufficient guarantee to prove it.

Theory of the Absolute Individual

The liberal philosopher’s interest is also confirmed in a letter addressed by Laterza to Giovanni Preziosi, send on 4 June of the same year. The publisher writes: “I have had on my desk for more than twenty hours the notes that Mr. Croce sent me concerning J. Evola’s book, Teoria dell’individuo assoluto; and he recommends its publication.” In fact, Croce visited Bari around 15 May; and it was on this occasion that he transmitted his notes to Giovanni Laterza. But the book was published by Bocca in 1927. That was the first intervention, of a long series, by the philosopher in Evola’s favour.


Some years later, Evola returned to knock at the door of the Bari publisher, in order to promote another of his works. In a letter sent on 23 July 1928, the Traditionalist proposed to Laterza the publication of a work on alchemical Hermeticism. On this occasion, he reminded Laterza of the Croce’s intercession on behalf of his work of a philosophical nature. This time once more, Laterza responded in the negative. Two years passed before Evola reoffered the book, having on this occasion obtained, for the second time, Croce’s support. On 13 May 1930, Evola wrote: “Senator Benedetto Croce communicated to me that you do not envisage, in principle, the possibility of publishing one of my works on the Hermetic tradition in your collection of esoteric works.” But this time, Laterza accepted Evola’s request without opposition. In the correspondence of that era between Croce and Laterza that one finds in the archives, there are no references to this book of Evola’s. This is why we may suppose that they had spoken of it in person at Croce’s house in Naples, where Giovanni Laterza has in fact stayed some days previous. In conclusion, five years after his first intervention, Croce succeeded finally in getting Evola into Laterza’s catalogue.

The third expression of interest on the part of Croce probably originated in Naples, and concerns the reedition of Cesare della Riviera’s book, Il mondo magico degli Heroi. Of the dialogues relative to this reedition, we find a first letter of 20 January 1932, in which Laterza complains to Evola of having failed to find notes on this book. A day later, Evola responds and asks that he be procured a copy of the original second edition, that he might cast an eye over it. Meanwhile, on 23 January, Croce wrote to Laterza:

I have seen in the shelves of the Biblioteca Nazionale that book of Riviera’s on magic; it’s a lovely example of what I believe to be the first edition of Mantova, 1603. It must be reissued, with dedication and preface.

The book ended up being published with a preface by Evola and his modernised transcription. A reading of the correspondence permits us to admit the following hypothesis: Croce had suggested to Laterza to entrust this work to Evola. The latter, in a letter to Laterza dated 11 February, gave his view and judged that “the thing was more boring that I’d thought it would be.”

The Anthology of Bachofen’s Writings

The fourth attempt, which was not welcomed, concerned a translation of selected writings by Bachofen. In a letter of 7 April 1933, to Laterza, Evola wrote:

With Senator Croce, we once mentioned the interest which might receive a translation of passages selected from Bachofen, a philosopher of myth much in vogue today in Germany. If this thing interests you (it might eventually join the “Modern Culture” series), I can tell you what it concerns, taking into account the opinion of Senator Croce.

In fact, Croce was preoccupied by Bachofen’s theses, as a series of articles from 1923 demonstrates. On 12 April, Laterza consults the philosopher: “Evola wrote me that you had spoken of a volume that would compile passages selected from Bachofen. Is it a project that we ought to take into consideration?” In Croce’s response, dated the following day, there is no reference to this project; but we ought to account for one fact: the letter has not been conserved in its original form.


Benedetto Croce

Evola, in any case, had not rejected the idea of producing this anthology of Bachofen’s writings. In a letter of 2 May, he announces that he proposes “to write to Senator Croce, that he might remind him of to what he had alluded” in a conversation between the two. In a second letter, dated to 23, Evola asked of Laterza if he in turn had asked the opinion of Croce, while confirming that he’d written to the philosopher. Two days later, Laterza declares not “to have asked Croce for his opinion” regarding the translation, because, he adds, “he fears lest he approve of it.” This is clearly a deceit. In fact, Laterza had asked the opinion of Croce; but we still don’t know what this opinion was, nor what had been decided. The anthology of selected writings of Bachofen was finally produced, many years later, in 1949, by Bocca. From 1933, the links between Evola and Croce seem to come to an end, at least from what the Laterza house archives permit us to include.

To find the trace of a reconciliation, we must refer ourselves to the post-War period, when Croce and Evola almost met once more in the world of publishing, but without the Traditionalist thinker noticing. In 1948, on 10 December, Evola proposed to Franco Laterza, who had just succeeded his father, to publish a translation of a book by Robert Reininger, Nietzsche e il senso de la vita. After having received the text, on 17 February, Laterza wrote to Alda Croce, the daughter of the philosopher: “I enclose to you a manuscript on Nietzsche, translated by Evola. It seems to me a good work; might you see if we can include it in the ‘Library of Modern Culture’?” On 27 of the same month, the philosopher responds. Croce considers that the operation might be possible; but he provides a few reservations all the same. He postpones his decision till Alda’s return, who was a few days in Palermo. The final decision was taken in Naples, around the 23 March 1949, in the presence of Franco Laterza. The opinion of Croce is negative, seemingly under the influence of his daughter Alda. On 1 April, Laterza confirms to Evola that “the book was much appreciated [without specifying by whom] on account of its quality,” but that, for reasons of “expediency,” it had been decided not to publish it. The translation appeared much later, in 1971, with Volpe.

This refusal to publish puzzled Evola, who didn’t know the real whys and wherefores. A year later, in some letters, returning the issue to the table, Evola raised the hypothesis of a “purge.” This insinuation irritated Laterza. Following this controversy, relations between the writer and the publisher cooled. In the final analysis, we can conclude that Evola was introduced to Laterza thanks to Croce’s interest in him. He left on account of a negative opinion offered by Alda, Croce’s daughter, on one of his proposals.

mardi, 24 mars 2020

Interview de Monsieur K à l'occasion de la réédition de "Révolte contre le monde moderne" de Julius Evola


Interview de Monsieur K

à l'occasion de la réédition de "Révolte contre le monde moderne" de Julius Evola

L’équipe d’E&R Lille recevait Monsieur K le 21 décembre 2019 pour une présentation du livre de Julius EVOLA « RÉVOLTE CONTRE LE MONDE MODERNE », et a profité de sa présence pour lui poser quelques questions diverses et variées.

samedi, 22 février 2020

Un auteur et son oeuvre : Julius Evola (1898-1974)


Un auteur et son oeuvre : Julius Evola (1898-1974)

par Michel Malle

Ex: https:lemondeduyoga.org

De l’orient tantrique au club des seigneurs, en passant par l’hermétisme et le spiritualisme masqué, nombreux sont les sujets de réflexion de Julius Evola. Mais il est des caractéristiques que l’on retrouve dans chacun de ses écrits, donnant à l’ensemble de son œuvre une certaine unité : une compréhension particulière de la magie, l’aspiration à des altitudes inconnues …

« L’homme dont nous allons tracer le portrait tenta de suivre la voie d’un karma yogi, c’est-à–dire qu’il choisit l’action comme voie de réintégration spirituelle : l’action conforme au Dharma (la Norme Universelle). Il a toujours dit: « René Guenon fut mon maître », c’est pourquoi nous envisagerons son oeuvre en rapport avec celle de Guénon, et cela d’autant que, dans son testament, fondant l’association qu’il a laissé, Evola précise ainsi le but visé: « Défendre les valeurs traditionnelles au sens où l’entendait René Guénon, Julius Evola et d’autres auteurs de même doctrine ». Même si nous devrons nous opposer à lui, ce sera donc dans cette sienne optique. « Je ne me suis pas borné à exposer les doctrines traditionnelles, j’ai cherché quels pouvaient être leurs aboutissements dans la réalité » dit-il, en entendant par là « dans l’action « . « J’ai donc cherché les conséquences à tirer des doctrines traditionnelles dans le sens d’une organisation sociale et politique de l’État », et aussi, avec plus de succès selon nous, dans le sens d’une éthique et d’une pratique pour l’homme traditionnel contemporain. Cette volonté d’engagement a conduit Evola à travailler de concert avec les divers mouvements fascistes de ce siècle. Cet aspect de sa vie, indissociable de son oeuvre, est problématique et, pour cette raison, nombre de « spiritualistes » n’osent pas l’aborder ou la déforment. Cette couardise ne sera pas nôtre : l’oeuvre mérite d’être connue, les questions qu’elle pose doivent l’être, et si les réponses ne nous satisfont pas toujours, il nous faudra en trouver de meilleures.

[…] Il semble qu’il ait dirige lui-même sa formation humaine très tôt et très indépendamment: on ne sait d’ailleurs pratiquement rien de son enfance. Il fit des études techniques et mathématiques qui le menèrent au titre d’ingénieur mais, s’il en garda une tournure d’esprit « scientifique  » (à ne pas confondre avec « matérialiste »), il ne pratiqua jamais, pour des raisons éthiques délibérées. L’attitude anti–bourgeoise, qui est l’un des traits marquants de sa personnalité, semble avoir été précoce. Il en est de même de son caractère guerrier, puisqu’il « s’engage peine âgé de 20 ans et qu’il prend part à la première guerre mondiale en tant que sous-lieutenant d’artillerie sur le plateau d’Asiago » […] Chez lui, la pensée et l’action se développèrent toujours conjointement, ainsi, deux ans avant son engagement, il commença à écrire des poèmes en italien et en français (outre le grec et le latin, il maîtrisait parfaitement les principales langues européennes, ce trait dénote aussi la précocité de son européanisme, qui devait se développer dans le cadre d’une vision impériale). Parallèlement à la poésie, il pratiqua la peinture abstraite. Ce fut sa période « Dada »: il fut en effet, à l’époque, l’un des représentants italiens du mouvement : « J’ai adhéré à ce mouvement comme mouvement limite, et non pas comme mouvement artistique. Si l’on était sérieux, on ne pouvait en rester là. A partir de 1922, je me suis séparé des dadas » […]

Alors commença ce qui fut appelé sa « période philosophique » (1923-1927). II publia deux ouvrages sur « l’individu absolu », dont « la Théorie et la Phénoménologie de l’individu absolu », qui reflètent certaines idées de Nietzsche, Weininger et Michelstädter. II en dira finalement: « Je ne conseillerai à personne de les lire tant ils sont écrits en jargon universitaire ». […]


JE-yoga.jpgEn 1926 parut: « L’homme en tant que puissance ». C’est un premier essai qui, bien des fois repris, donnera en 1949 « Le yoga tantrique, sa métaphysique, ses pratiques ». Evola s’ouvre à l’Orient, en l’occurrence à la tradition hindoue, et cela est d’autant plus intéressant que l’orient d’Evola n’est pas le même que celui de Guénon, il s’agit essentiellement de doctrines émanant de la caste des ksatriyas, la caste guerrière, et par cet aspect on trouve quelque chose qui consonne remarquablement avec l’ancienne tradition occidentale: il s’agit aussi de science « magique ». Prévenons tout de suite une équivoque possible : ce qu’Evola nomme magie n’a pas grand-chose à voir avec ce que désigne le mot dans le langage courant actuel. […]


Prolongeant les oeuvres équivalentes de Guénon, il fait paraître en 1932 « Masques et visages du spiritualisme contemporain ». Le grand intérêt de cet ouvrage vient de ce qu’il aborde certains aspects du spiritualisme contemporain que Guenon n’avait pas analysés. […]


En 1934, Évola publia « Révolte contre le monde moderne ». Ce livre est considéré par ses disciples comme le plus important. Lorsque, du point de vue des idées, on se questionne sur la valeur de l’apport d’Evola, cette oeuvre, finalement, se dégonfle un peu. Elle présente l’intérêt d’une fantastique érudition retraçant l’histoire du point de vue d’une vision traditionnelle cyclique. De nombreux aspects du monde moderne y sont envisagés, que Guénon n’avait pas soulignés: aspects qui, sans être fondamentaux, méritaient d’être si remarquablement analysés. Le style est fort et, pourrait-on dire, vengeur. Mais, à notre point de vue, ce livre est entaché de cette idée, qui s’affirmera plus encore dans le suivant, que la caste noble est supérieure à la caste sacerdotale. La seule question qui nous intéresse est celle-ci: la connaissance est-elle supérieure à l’action, oui ou non? Si non, l’action ne peut plus se distinguer de l’agitation. Si oui, le spirituel est supérieur au guerrier, il convient alors qu’une civilisation traditionnelle reflète cette hiérarchie et peu importe que le spirituel et le temporel soient aux mains d’un même homme ou aux mains d’hommes différents, reliés hiérarchiquement. Ceci étant établi, l’importance qu’Evola a pu attacher à cette question reste problématique et la façon dont elle est abordée aussi. Dans « la Crise du Monde Moderne », c’est le monde moderne qui est en crise, non celui qui s’y oppose: si une révolution, au sens strictement étymologique, peut être traditionnelle, ce ne saurait être le cas d’une révolte.

Quoi qu’il en soit de ces critiques,  » Révolte contre le Monde Moderne » est un livre à lire, c’est probablement le plus important livre de « métaphysique de l’histoire » qui soit. […]


En 1937, dans « Le mystère du Graal et l’idée impériale gibeline », Évola apporte une nouvelle contribution importante à la restauration doctrinale de la tradition occidentale. Malheureusement, et encore une fois, il fausse en partie l’idée civilisatrice traditionnelle. Toute l’argumentation d’Evola consiste à dire que l’Église, en développant les valeurs d’une religiosité féminine, mystique, passive face au monde spirituel se révèle être inférieure à la tradition du Graal, qui représente l’idéal chevaleresque. Mais l’argument est spécieux car, si cette démonstration va de soi, elle ne permet pas d’en conclure que la contemplation puisse être au-dessous de l’action. La Chevalerie est supérieure parce qu’elle est plus profondément spirituelle, et non parce qu’elle manie les armes: quant à l’Église, tant qu’elle ne consiste qu’en un exotérisme religieux, elle ne représente pas la pure autorité spirituelle, elle n’est qu’un pouvoir religieux. Si bien que, si l’Église et la Chevalerie étaient vraiment ce qu’en dit Evola il faudrait dire que la Chevalerie est supérieure à l’Église parce qu’elle est plus spirituelle et non dire que le guerrier est supérieur au contemplatif. Tout ce qu’apporte Evola dans l’affaire c’est une fâcheuse équivoque, car, une fois posé que le guerrier est au-dessus du prêtre, il se laisse aller à considérer toute éthique guerrière comme potentiellement porteuse d’une plus haute spiritualité que le Christianisme ; de là découle l’erreur de son « action politique ».

Quoi qu’il en soit, ce livre se pose comme « une étude sérieuse et engagée sur le Graal et le gibelinisme « , ce qu’il est, incontestablement. […]


Cette même année 1937, il publia « Le mythe du sang » en rapport très étroit avec les doctrines racistes allemandes. Certes, dans cet ouvrage, et dans celui qui suivra en 1941 «Synthèse des doctrines de la race », Evola s’oppose aux idées racistes matérialistes d’un Rosenberg et leur substitue l’idée d’une race de l’esprit » dans laquelle la race physique n’est qu’un élément d’une vaste équation: « L’idée d’une race allemande – dit-il – est une absurdité ». « Mais -dit Guénon de ce livre – le mot même de race nous parait être employé d’une façon assez impropre et détournée car au fond, c’est bien plutôt de caste qu’il s’agit en réalité… alors pourquoi parler encore de « race », si ce n’est par une concession plutôt fâcheuse à certaines idées courantes, qui sont assurément fort éloignées de toute spiritualité? ». En 1941, et toujours dans le même genre d’équivoque, Evola publia « La doctrine aryenne de lutte et de victoire « . […]

Pour situer historiquement son action, précisons qu’il fut très proche des milieux germaniques conservateurs et aristocratiques qui se réclamaient du « prussianisme et cultivaient la nostalgie des chevaliers teutoniques ». « Himmler – continue Evola -me portait un intérêt particulier » ainsi que « le baron von Gleichen, dont j’étais un ami intime » et qui était lui-même le chef du « club des seigneurs ». « Je connaissais en outre intimement le chancelier von Pappen et, en Autriche, Karl Anton von Rohan, dans ce milieu opposé au « populisme dictatorial » du national socialisme ». Voici ce qu’il en fut en Italie du côté fasciste: « Au tout début de la guerre, Mussolini lut ma « Synthèse d’une doctrine de la race » et me fit chercher pour me féliciter et me demander de collaborer avec lui -Mais Duce, je ne suis pas fasciste- car je n’ai jamais été d’aucun parti…  » En fait, il travailla, comme écrivain et comme conférencier en Italie, en Allemagne et en Autriche, à la formation doctrinale de certains milieux proches du pouvoir. […]

Standing_Bodhisattva_Gandhara_Musee_Guimet.jpgLA GRANDE LIBERATION DU PRINCE SIDDHARTA

Très étonnamment, au milieu de tout cela, Evola publia en 1943 « la Doctrine de l’Éveil, essai sur l’ascèse bouddhique ». Le fait que ce livre essentiel et vraiment spirituel ait été publié au coeur de cette période truffée d’erreurs logiques et de drames montre que la personnalité et l’oeuvre d’Evola sont très difficiles à aborder. II existe le double risque d’adhérer à certaines voies d’action sous prétexte qu’elles ont été formulées par un homme dont la doctrine est souvent transcendante et de repousser une doctrine dont l’action qui prétend en découler s’est par trop évidemment fourvoyée.


Dans un appendice sur « les limites de la régularité initiatique », Évola reconsidère les notions guénoniennes sur l’initiation dans une optique qui nous parait aussi indispensable qu’intéressante. « Contre le schéma guénonien en lui-même il n’y aurait pas grand-chose à objecter », dit-il, tout en soulignant malicieusement le « caractère presque bureaucratique de cette régularité ». Néanmoins sa critique porte sur plusieurs points. D’abord sur les « débouchés »: « Le Compagnonnage est une organisation initiatique résiduelle d’origine corporative, de portée fort restreinte et d’ailleurs limitée à la France »; « La Franc–Maçonnerie moderne est l’un des cas d’organisation dont l’élément vraiment spirituel s’est « retiré » et chez lesquels le « psychisme » restant a servi d’instrument à des forces ténébreuses, pour qui s’en tient au principe de juger de l’arbre à ses fruits »; quant au « christianisme, c’est une tradition mutilée en sa partie supérieure », toutes choses nous semble-t-il indéniables; ce qui permet à Evola d’ironiser, peut-être un peu facilement,sur les « rares allusions des premiers siècles chrétiens de notre ère ou de certains rites de l’Église grecque orthodoxe à la chasse desquels sont partis certains guénoniens ». Outre ces problèmes pratiques, Évola affirme: « La continuité – « des influences spirituelles » – est illusoire lorsque n’existent plus de représentants dignes et conscients d’une chaîne initiatique donnée ».Il se propose d’éviter deux écueils: d’une part, les fantasmes auto-initiatiques à la Steiner qui ne font qu’appliquer au « domaine de l’esprit l’idéal américain du self made man » et, d’autre part, « une conception proche de celle du – « péché originel » -selon laquelle l’homme, irrémédiablement taré, ne pourrait rien par lui-même ». […]


« Il fut blessé à Vienne d’un éclat d’obus dans la colonne vertébrale vers les derniers jours d’avril 1945 au cours d’un bombardement aérien soviétique. A partir de cette date il resta paralysé des deux jambes sans aucun espoir de guérison » […]


C’est en 1949 qu’Évola reprit ses publications avec « Le yoga tantrique, sa métaphysique et ses pratiques », livre qui développait le premier essai de 1926.  » S’il advenait un jour -écrit Jean Varenne à propos d’Evola et de Guénon que fussent éditées les oeuvres complètes de ces deux seigneurs de la pensée, on verrait à quel point elles représentent les deux visages d’un seul et même mouvement ». « L’Homme et son devenir selon le Védanta » et « le Yoga Tantrique » illustrent parfaitement ce propos. […]


En 1951 il publie un livre au titre évocateur de son sentiment « Les hommes au milieu des ruines ». Il s’agit, comme pour faire le point d’une action passée, de poser les principes d’une reconstitution européenne traditionnelle. Sont envisagées les notions de révolution traditionnelle, d’autorité, de hiérarchie et d’état organique. Evola y développe aussi d’intéressantes considérations sur l’économie moderne et les corporations, sur la stratégie de la guerre occulte et sur le problème de l’explosion démographique. La doctrine y est solide, mais lorsqu’il s’agit de désigner le milieu humain propre à servir de moteur à un tel mouvement, la solution apparaît presque débile: en étant à peine méchant, on pourrait penser qu’un recyclage métaphysique de quelques divisions de parachutistes nourrirait l’espoir d’Evola.


Fruit d’une fabuleuse érudition, cet ouvrage parut en 1958. Évola commence par l’indispensable nettoyage d’un terrain qui est loin d’être « vierge ». « Ce n’est pas l’homme qui descend du singe par évolution, mais le singe qui descend de l’homme par involution ». […]

Ceci posé, la doctrine traditionnelle s’épanouit: « de la fréquentation, même sans contact, d’individus des deux sexes, naît, dans l’être le plus profond de l’un et de l’autre, une énergie spéciale ou « fluide » immatériel, appelé « tsing ». Celui-ci dérive uniquement de la polarité du ying et du yang ». Cet enseignement de la tradition chinoise se trouve confirmé par Swamy Shivananda Sarasvati: « La semence est une énergie dynamique qu’il faut convertir en énergie spirituelle (ojas) ». Cette opération, qui va à contresens de l’écoulement nature! des forces, « est appelée viparîta-karanî (opération de l’inversion) ». « Un homme n’aime pas une femme parce qu’elle est belle »; Evola, reprenant une idée connue dit: « Il aime parce qu’il aime, au–delà de toute logique, et précisément ce mystère révèle le magnétisme de l’amour ». « Le substratum du sexe est super-physique, il a son siège dans ce que, avec les Anciens, nous appelons l’âme du corps — »le corps subtil  » – « . « Le sexe qui existe dans le corps, existe aussi et d’abord dans l’âme et, dans une certaine mesure, dans l’esprit même ».


Avec « Chevaucher le tigre », en 1961, Evola fait oeuvre vraiment originale. I! pousse jusqu’à !’extrême ses audaces de pensée et formule un guide de conduite pour l’homme qui doit vivre dans un monde où tout hurle à la face du ciel et qui, refusant de « hurler avec les loups  » veut faire de leurs cris une musique pour son âme. […]”

Les carnets du yoga, n°43, novembre 1982, pp. 2-26.

00:07 Publié dans Hommages, Traditions | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : julius evola, tradition, traditionalisme, hommage | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

lundi, 27 mai 2019

Analysis of "Men Among the Ruins" (Kulturkampf Podcast)


Analysis of "Men Among the Ruins" (Kulturkampf Podcast)

Full episode about Julius Evola's most political work - "Men Among the Ruins" which was written after the second World War. It has previously been taken off youtube.

vendredi, 10 mai 2019

Evola and Neo-Eurasianism


Evola and Neo-Eurasianism

Ex: https://www.geopolitica.ru

We must understand Julius Evola’s work in the same vein as we understand Heidegger’s approach to metaphysics and Western civilization.

While we can know, for sure, that the current state of Western civilization no longer resembles, in toto, the idealistic image once pictured by Heidegger and Spengler, we must be aware that their work constitutes an important and vital watershed.

The spirit of of old Europe is alive in Heidegger’s work, just as much as in Evola’s work. Both represent the spirit of an age that knew – intimately, perhaps – the Nietzschean drive to its deep modernistic roots and its essence, and perhaps could be depicted in a certain sense as representing the age of the (aspiring) Overman, the active nihilist, and of the regimes that sought a new model of man – many of them Fascist, Communist or even Liberal – as opposed to the current age of the Last Man, a man who has lost the Faustian drive almost entirely and therefore succumbed to passive nihilism, and to the spirit of an age that has fully transitioned from Modernity to Post-Modernity. An age that now consequently, in our current epoch, faces complete dissolution.

Evola addresses this age of dissolution just as intensively and concisely as Heidegger deconstructs the essence of Western logos and of its Metaphysics focused on unreal abstract presences, on reified essences, and on the thinking subject.

We must understand Evola as a savant who was deeply aware of his own role within the End Times, and the sort of distillation, of objectivity (sachlichkeit), that would be necessary in confronting the dimensions and challenges given in our age. We must sense, in him, a man who grasped the inevitable dissolution and destruction of the standards of the bourgeois era, and the age of so-called “Old” Europe, of the Europe that was still recognizable to a man like Oswald Spengler, and about whose inevitable destiny Goebbels firmly proclaimed – as he spoke, during the aftermath of the Dresden bombing and the late 2nd major global confrontation: “all of old Europe comes crashing down, and will be buried, with this war. With this conflict, comes down the ruin of the bourgeois age.” [rough translation]

Even if this fundamentally correct intuition did not come in the style of perverted Nazi dreams, with the construction of the fascist Neue Ordnung, but instead with the building of a demented, sick, geriatric and nihilistic liberal regime within an Americanized mold, we must still see in Evola a sort of logical conclusion to the presuppositions that have so far underlined the later stages of European reaction.

Evola must be understood as constituting the bridge from late Western European continental thought, to Tradition as we should know, and properly understand in the conception that must underlie the foundations of a new, post-liberal civilization that we – as men of the Midnight – must necessarily aspire to.

The very movement of Evola’s life, from the Absolute Idealism of his youth, towards the Neo-Platonic intellectual rigidity, the cemented and refined orthodoxy of the “late” Evola, is indicative of the way that we should take in our age.

Evola wrote precisely for us, the men of the midnight. His writings concerned not just the critique of late Western metaphysics, from a partial point of view that is perhaps much more complete in the work of Rene Guenon and Martin Heidegger, but carries in itself the apocalyptic and eschatological vision of the End – although within Evola’s work, we must understand the undertones of this view of the End Times as being fundamentally different from the Semitic bluster of emotions that have characterized our understanding of the term within Christian civilization.

Evola’s view of the End Times is strictly aligned with a different Orthodoxy, namely, that of Platonism, Hermeticism, Buddhism in its early purer form, and also Samkhya, Advaita and other such currents that can still be discerned in our age. In them, while the End Times and the Dark Age form a coherent given, there’s a marked absence of the pathos of the Semitic type within the scope of these alternative traditional teachings.

The current age of liberal decadence, of the end of Western humanity, must be understood within the aegis and scope of the broad movement of dissolution, of fragmentation, that precedes the end of the cycle. And this is followed, markedly, by the search for transcendence in a world that has become meaningless, formless, objectified, banal and the passive receptacle of a process very similar to the fetish of commodities described by Marxist ideologues. And within this dystopian world of the late times, we can also witness the correspondence made in a very precise fashion with the age of the fourth caste, the age of the Sudra – characterized for instance by the domination of the formless mass man, of pure quantity and of machines – as opposed to the previous bourgeois age that retained the remnants of deeper, older organic elements.


Within this age, and within the West, we must acknowledge that everything that was still organic and traditional in the previous “bourgeois” age, that ended most definitely in 1945, is now coming to an end or has already been destroyed. The anti-modernist teaching of the Roman Church was killed and buried together with its ceremonial and liturgical core, and so were the remnants of the organic, pre and anti-modern social elements, like the aristocracy, the clergy, and the broad aristocratic and hierarchical structures that still played their role in granting a deep and effective sense of societal and personal differentiation no longer present in our day and age.

In our age, which is marked deeply by the liberal and also former Communist erosion of all the remaining standards of organic civilization, we cannot count on the luxury of having the old models and superstructures present within our current milieu. The organic society of the Renaissance, and its predecessor, the organic society of the Middle Ages, are now but a distant memory. What is present right now is precisely the inorganic model of the civilized, late liberal world, that drags itself inexorably towards a vortex of imbecility, downwards leveling of the social structure, and also self-disintegration. Of this, we can only take into account the brilliant work “Jihad vs McWorld”, the sort of book that bears a title very fitting to the current age of Spenglerian early Caesarism, money politics, and solidification.

We have already discussed briefly here and elsewhere the nature of this age. And now, we must understand that when the West lies close to its stage of effective mortality, the initiative must be seized decisively towards a new direction. This initiative consists in the gathering of the men of the Midnight, the differentiated men who “ride the tiger”, to the construction of a new paradigm that must necessarily come after the deep, dark night of Western modernity, and that shall come to the fore as the necessary civilizing Traditional force over a world in ruins. Of a world that has lost sight of itself, and has submerged itself into the most elementary and animal-like barbarity.

L’altro ’68 tra Julius Evola e Jan Palach


L’altro ’68 tra Julius Evola e Jan Palach

da Giovanni Sessa
Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it

Molti dei mali del nostro tempo hanno avuto una lunga incubazione storica. Non può, però, essere messo in dubbio che, un momento di evidente accelerazione dei processi di crisi, si sia mostrato, in modo lapalissiano, nel tanto mitizzato 1968 e nella contestazione studentesca. Due recenti pubblicazioni vengono, opportunamente, a ricordarcelo. Si tratta di Julius Evola, Scritti sul ’68, comparso nel catalogo dell’editore l’Arco e la Corte (per ordini: arcoelacorte@libero.it, pp. 130, euro 15,00), e del volume di Petr Vyoral, Jan Palach, Praga 1969. Una torcia nella notte, di recente nelle librerie per Ferrogallico (per ordini: info@ferrogallico.it, pp. 111, euro 15,00).

9788894398328_0_306_0_75.jpg   Il primo libro, come ricorda nell’informata Premessa Alessandro Barbera, raccoglie gli articoli che Evola pubblicò su il Borghese nel biennio 1968-1969, aventi per tema la contestazione, due suoi scritti apparsi su Il Conciliatore, nonché un’intervista rilasciata, per lo stesso mensile, a Gianfranco de Turris. Infine, un articolo pubblicato sul Roma nel 1971 e il capitolo tratto da L’arco e la clava, intitolato La gioventù, i beats e gli anarchici di destra. Chiude il volume, un’Appendice che riunisce scritti di Mario Tedeschi, Giano Accame ed Adriano Romualdi. Dalla lettura è possibile evincere l’effettiva posizione che il filosofo assunse nei confronti del movimento studentesco. Evola iniziò la propria collaborazione a il Borghese di Tedeschi, per chiamata diretta dello stesso Direttore. Questi non condivideva le posizioni fatte proprie, in tema di movimento studentesco e «cinesi» all’Università, da Giano Accame, intelligenza scomoda formatasi sui testi di Evola, ma aperta, lo ricorda Barbera, alla modernità. Mentre Accame rilevava assonanze teoriche di fondo tra il pensiero di Tradizione ed alcuni assunti teorici espressi dai francofortesi, gli interventi Evola, misero in luce come, nell’antropologia disegnata da Marcuse, emergesse un debito rilevante nei confronti del freudismo.

   L’uomo che i contestatori avevano in vista per il superamento della società ad una dimensione, vedeva il prevalere della spinta meramente pulsionale, legata ad un’idea di libertà quale puro svincolo, libertà-da e non libertà-per. Inoltre, Evola espresse una critica radicale del maoismo, ideologia sostanziata dal marxismo e da un nazionalismo collettivistico, del tutto alieno dall’idea di comunità tradizionale. Ciò lo indusse a prendere, con chiarezza, le distanze dai gruppi nazi-maoisti che sostenevano di ispirarsi alle sue idee, come ribadito anche nell’intervista concessa a de Turris. Sulle medesime posizioni si schierò lo stesso Adriano Romualdi. La vera urgenza, per Evola, non andava individuata nella contestazione al sistema, ma nella Rivolta contro l’intera civiltà moderna. Non esistendo strutture politiche, né partitiche, atte a tanto, sarebbe stato necessario dedicarsi alla formazione personale, spirituale ed esistenziale, per farsi trovare pronti al momento opportuno. Evola fu, dunque, lungimirante.

    Comprese che il ’68 era funzionale al sistema e che i contestatori avrebbero semplicemente scardinato, a favore dei padroni del vapore, il ruolo dei corpi intermedi, della famiglia, avrebbero soprattutto messo in atto l’assassinio del Padre, indispensabile figura della trasmissione della Tradizione, al fine di liberare l’energia sovversiva del capitalismo, fino ai limiti estremi. Coglie nel segno, nella postfazione, Manlio Triggiani nel sostenere che Evola criticò, ad un tempo, i contestatori, e quanti a destra svolsero il ruolo di guardie bianche del sistema, «liberando» le Università dai «cinesi» che le occupavano. Comprese, che, per costruire un Nuovo Inizio europeo, sarebbe stato necessario lasciarsi alle spalle la mera nostalgia, così come gli sterili richiami patriottardi.

   Il secondo volume che presentiamo è dedicato a Jan Palach e richiama l’attenzione sull’Altro Sessantotto, quello combattuto, oltre la cortina di ferro, non dai figli della borghesia americanizzata dell’Occidente, dai narcisi à la page, ma dai figli del popolo che lottavano per affermare, sacrificando la propria vita, la dignità dell’uomo e della Tradizione. Il libro è costituito da testi e da disegni. Presenta in modalità decisamente accattivante, nel fumetto ottimamente realizzato da Vyoral, la storia, personale e politica, di Jan Palach, «torcia n. 1» che il 16 gennaio 1969, in piazza  san Venceslao a Praga, si diede fuoco per protestare, non solo contro l’occupazione del suo paese da parte delle truppe sovietiche ma, ancor di più, per suscitare una reazione forte nei confronti dell’asfissia prodotta dal sistema comunista. La primavera di Praga era stata stroncata nel sangue: non si trattava di «riformare» il comunismo, ma di sconfiggerlo. Il fumetto è accompagnato e completato dai testi di Emanuele Ricucci, autore della Prefazione, e di Umberto Maiorca, a cui si deve la Postfazione. Il primo ricostruisce, con toni lirici e appassionati, le tragiche vicende del giovane studente universitario ceco, ricordando quanto asserito da Marcello Veneziani: «i sessantottini incendiarono il mondo pensando a sé stessi, mentre Palach incendiò se stesso pensando al mondo» (p. 7). Maiorca ripercorre, in modo organico e compiuto, la breve esistenza di Jan, sottolineando, a beneficio del lettore, che nei Paesi dell’Est europeo, molte furono, in quegli anni, le torce che si accesero, perché la verità tornasse a riempire, luminosa, la vita offesa dal comunismo. Il 25 gennaio 1969, si svolsero i funerali del martire: «in una Praga avvolta dal silenzio e da una pioggia sottile […] sotto un cielo grigio seicentomila persone scendono in strada» (p. 96).


  I suoi resti mortali non trovarono pace. La sua tomba divenne luogo di culto e di pellegrinaggio, che il regime non poteva tollerare. Il corpo venne riesumato, cremato, e le ceneri consegnate alla madre. Solo nel 1974 furono nuovamente sepolte, ma sulla tomba, perché non fosse riconosciuta, comparvero le sole iniziali del nome, «J. P.». Il senso comune contemporaneo tende a relegare gesti come quelli di Palach, nelle forme del patologico, riducendolo alla categoria della «follia». Ciò è naturale, la società post-moderna non riconoscendo più il Padre, il precedente autorevole, può mai comprendere la quint’essenza dell’Eroe? Jan Palach l’ha pienamente incarnata. Resterà per sempre simbolo del nostro Sessantotto.


Di Giovanni Sessa

lundi, 01 avril 2019

Julius Evola pour tous (les hommes différenciés)


Julius Evola pour tous (les hommes différenciés)

par Thierry DUROLLE

L’un des plus célèbres penseurs de la Droite radicale européenne fait toujours parler de lui, quarante-quatre ans après sa disparition. Ce penseur est Julius Evola. Nous préférons le qualifier de penseur plutôt que d’intellectuel, terme originellement péjoratif et qui d’ailleurs ferait bien de recouvrir sa définition initiale. Gianfranco de Turris, président de la Fondation Evola en Italie et auteur d’un magistral Elogio e difesa di Julius Evola, nous rappelle qu’Evola fut « peintre et philosophe, poète et hermétiste, morphologue de l’histoire et politologue, critique des mœurs et sexologue, orientaliste et mythologue, spécialiste des religions et de la Tradition. Mais ce fut aussi un alpiniste chevronné,il fut journaliste, conférencier et universitaire (p. 6) ».

Julius Evola est-il toujours actuel ? N’a-t-il pas été relégué dans la poubelle de l’Histoire par les forces de la subversion ? Et, est-ce que ses idées demeurent pertinentes encore aujourd’hui ? « Au début de l’année 2018, le 12 février, le principal quotidien italien de gauche, La Repubblica, publia en première page un article au titre exceptionnel et extravagant : “ Evola et le fascisme inspirent Bannon, le cerveau de Trump. ” […] Le philosophe et politologue russe Alexandre Douguine admit dans plusieurs interviews que sa pensée avait été profondément influencée par celle de Julius Evola […]. Or, le fait est que Douguine est assez proche du président russe, et fut même présenté comme son “ conseiller ” (p. 8). »

Deux exemples plutôt maladroits pour tenter de justifier de l’actualité de la pensée du Baron. Deux éminences grises déchues, l’un publiciste, l’autre « Raspoutine de sous-préfecture », pour reprendre l’amusante expression d’un traducteur à l’ego hypertrophié. Deux agents de l’anti-Europe, l’un national-libérale (sioniste ?) et l’autre néo-eurasiste pan-russe, deux formes de soumission politiques et spirituelles. Bref, rien d’évolien là-dedans. À noter qu’un certain Jason Horowitz s’émut, dès février 2017, de la possible influence d’Evola sur Bannon dans un article intitulé « Steven Bannon cited Italian thinker who inspired fascists ». La pensée de Julius Evola représente toujours un danger pour l’ennemi.

Il est évident que l’œuvre de Julius Evola reste d’actualité, puisqu’elle met en exergue notre européanité d’une part (sur les plans mythologiques, culturels, spirituels, et politiques) et la Tradition d’autre part. « Ses » idées sont d’actualité aussi car il fut un temps où elles furent la norme, l’évidence même. Ceux qui connaissent bien les différents écrits d’Evola peuvent témoigner de la présence constante de la Tradition comme principe ordonnateur et, en ce sens, cosmique. La pensée de Julius Evola est authentiquement de Droite, d’une Droite métaphysique, éternelle, verticale, ordonnée du haut vers le bas. La cohérence entre le verbe et l’action chez Evola suscite le respect et l’admiration : rares sont ceux qui unirent les deux à un tel niveau.

Pénétrer la pensée protéiforme du penseur italien n’est pas forcément chose aisée. Cela peut demander une certaine persévérance mais aussi une entrée adéquate. Par où commencer ? En ce qui nous concerne, nous avons toujours conseillé, dans la mesure du possible, de lire en premier Révolte contre le monde moderne pour avoir, au minimum, le « décor » de la pensée évolienne. Puis Orientations et Les hommes au milieu des ruines nous semblaient être deux ouvrages politiques fondamentaux à lire à la suite du maître-ouvrage mentionné. Mais il s’agit là d’une première approche au caractère politique. Elle ne permet pas d’avoir une vue d’ensemble des thèmes évoliens.

C’est là que toute la pertinence du Petit livre noir s’offre aux néophytes. Et nous ne pouvons que nous réjouir de la réédition augmenté de ce vade mecum grâce à la toute jeune maison d’édition helvète Lohengrin ! Clin d’œil anti-marxiste-maoïste au malheureusement célèbre Petit livre rouge, ce recueil de citations représente probablement l’une des meilleures façons d’aborder l’œuvre d’Evola dans son intégralité. Les extraits – qui furent soumis en leur temps à l’auteur – sont classés dans onze catégories distinctes et sont issus de quasiment tous les ouvrages d’Evola, dont certains toujours en attente d’une traduction française (!) en plus d’articles et de divers entretiens.

La préface de Gianfranco de Turris se veut aussi synthétique que le contenu de l’ouvrage. Turris fait une présentation de l’homme et ses idées qui, ici aussi, sera idéale pour les nouveaux venus. Enfin, la couverture bien que de noire vêtue, arbore dorénavant un magnifique portrait de Julius Evola signé Jacques Terpant, illustrateur et peintre de grand talent. En quatrième de couverture cette citation d’Evola fait figure de programme : « Seule un retour à l’esprit traditionnel dans une nouvelle conscience unitaire européenne pourra sauver l’Occident. » Gageons que la lecture du Petit livre noir éveille une nouvelle génération d’Européens à un tel impératif.

Thierry Durolle

• Julius Evola, Le petit livre noir, édition augmentée, Éditions Lohengrin, 2019, 175 p., 18 €.

jeudi, 28 juin 2018

La solitudine siderale di Evola


La solitudine siderale di Evola

Marcello Veneziani

Ex: http://www.marcelloveneziani.com 

“Ho dovuto aprirmi da solo la via…Quasi come un disperso ho dovuto cercare di riconnettermi con i miei propri mezzi ad un esercito allontanatosi, spesso attraversando terre infide e perigliose”. Così Julius Evola descrive nella sua autobiografia la solitudine siderale del suo cammino. Mezzo secolo fa Evola scese dal cavallo altero dell’impersonalità e si raccontò in un’autobiografia intellettuale che intitolò con spirito alchemico Il cammino del cinabro.

Evola racconta la sua vita attraverso le sue opere e i suoi snodi fondamentali: l’esperienza della Grande Guerra, poi il periodo di pittore dada, quindi la fase filosofica, poi il suo percorso esoterico, infine il suo cammino nella Tradizione. E sullo sfondo, i suoi rapporti con gli artisti e gli iniziati, gli scrittori e i filosofi del suo tempo, le trasgressioni, il suo controverso rapporto col fascismo tra sostegno e dissenso, superfascismo e antifascismo, e poi con i giovani della destra postbellica.

C’è anche il capitolo scabroso del razzismo. Evola fu teorico di un razzismo spirituale che non piacque ai razzisti doc e ai nazisti ma gli restò addosso come il suo peccato originale. Non c’è in lui odio antisemita né alcun fanatismo, c’è perfino una dignitosa coerenza, riconobbe Renzo De Felice. Ma Evola prescinde totalmente dai fatti e dalla tragedia dello sterminio e si attesta solo sui principi; ciò infonde un tono astratto alle farneticazioni della razza, qui ridotte peraltro da lui a “una parentesi” nella sua vita e nella sua opera.

Evola confessa di aver rasentato da giovane “l’area delle allucinazioni visionarie e fors’anche della pazzia” e “una specie di cupio dissolvi, un impulso a disperdersi e a perdersi”. Nelle pagine del Cinabro, a fianco del pensiero e delle opere, scorre la vita, la storia – arricchita dalle note dei curatori – gli ambienti a lui vicini e a lui avversi, le note ostili della questura ai tempi del fascismo, perfino la vicenda di un duello rifiutato da Evola per non abbassarsi al rango dello sfidante che però gli costò la rimozione del grado di ufficiale e gli impedì di partire volontario nella seconda guerra mondiale.

Ci sono gli scontri con alcuni fascisti, c’è la sua fama di mago e c’è perfino l’accenno di Evola al Mussolini superstizioso: “aveva un’autentica paura per gli iettatori di cui vietava che si pronunciasse il nome in suo cospetto”. C’è la storia assurda del processo nel dopoguerra a un gruppo di giovani neofascisti in cui fu coinvolto un Evola del tutto ignaro e ormai paralizzato, vittima di un bombardamento a Vienna. C’è la sua scelta antiborghese e anticonservatrice rivendicata in Cavalcare la tigre ma c’è poi la critica di stampo conservatore al ’68 e alla dissoluzione in atto.

E ci sono gli ultimi capodanni di Evola nella sua casa romana, la sua tazza di brodo di tartaruga, un sorso di champagne e il concerto di Capodanno in tv.

E la cronaca della sua morte, l’11 giugno di 40 anni fa, quando si fece portare davanti alla finestra e morì in piedi, guardando al Gianicolo; e poi i funerali con la sua bara senza croce e senza corteo funebre, secondo le sue volontà, e le sue ceneri disperse dopo vicissitudini tra le cime delle Alpi, che aveva amato e scalato. Evola fu un mito già da vivente, avvolto in un alone di magia.

In queste pagine aleggia un paradosso: un pensatore isolato e in disparte che incrocia nella sua vita e nella sua opera, gli autori, le correnti, gli eventi più salienti del Novecento. A questo paradosso ne corrisponde uno inverso sul piano del pensiero: Evola, fautore della Tradizione e del Sacro, fonda la sua opera su un Individualismo Trascendentale, non solo teorico e psichico ma pratico e magico. Per Evola la verità è solo “un riflesso della potenza: la verità è un errore potente, l’errore è una verità debole”. Un relativismo imperniato sulla potenza, che ne decide il rango e il valore. “Essere, verità, certezza non stanno dietro ma avanti, sono dei compiti”, non dei fondamenti.

Grandiosi piani metastorici in nome della Tradizione, templi sacri, civiltà millenarie dell’Essere ma in piedi resta solo la solitudine stellare dell’Io. Solipsismo eroico. “Debbo pochissimo all’ambiente, all’educazione, alla linea del mio sangue – scrive Evola in queste pagine, sottolineando la sua assoluta estraneità alla tradizione cristiana, famigliare e patriottica – il mio impulso alla trascendenza è centrato sull’affermazione libera dell’Io”. Anzi, avverte Evola, “non vi è avvenimento rilevante dell’esistenza che non sia stato da noi stessi voluto in sede prenatale”. Siamo quasi all’autocreazione, al “self made man” metafisico. Resta sospesa nei cieli la domanda che qui si pone Evola: “Che cosa può venire dopo il nichilismo europeo?… Dove si può trovare un appoggio, un senso dell’esistenza, senza tornare indietro?” Evola rispose che l’unica soluzione era “essere se stessi, seguire solo la propria legge, facendone un assoluto”. Ma non è proprio questa incondizionata libertà la punta più avanzata del nichilismo europeo, non è di questo individualismo assoluto che sta morendo la nostra civiltà? E se fosse l’Individuo Assoluto l’ostacolo estremo alla rivelazione dell’Essere?

Un titanico e aristocratico disdegno del mondo accompagna il racconto biografico di Evola. Ma ogni tanto si apre uno squarcio nel suo severo stile impersonale. Ad esempio quando riporta in queste pagine i giudizi lusinghieri sulle sue opere. Fa tenerezza notare che per lenire il suo isolamento Evola citi queste sporadiche e spesso modeste attenzioni alla sua opera. O quando sfugge al suo stoicismo imperturbabile qualche umanissima amarezza per la scarsa risonanza delle sue opere e per il mancato riconoscimento del suo pensiero: “La grande stampa e la cultura ufficiale rimasero, e anche in seguito dovevano rimanere, sorde”.

Lo stesso Cammino del Cinabro, confessa nella nota d’esordio, fu scritto “nell’eventualità che un giorno l’opera da me svolta in otto lustri sia fatta oggetto di un’attenzione diversa da quella che finora le è stata concessa”. Altri lustri sono passati dalla sua morte ma non sembrano ancora bastati. La solitudine di Evola sfida i secoli.

MV, relazione al convegno su Evola nel 2014, poi pubblicato dalla Fondazione  Evola con le edizioni de Il Borghese

mardi, 22 mai 2018

What Would Evola Do?


What Would Evola Do?

The follow is the text of the talk that Counter-Currents editor John Morgan delivered to The New York Forum on May 20, 2017.

Tonight I thought I’d talk about Julius Evola, since yesterday (May 19) was his 119th birthday, and I have overseen the publication of many of Evola’s texts in English. Evola’s the sort of figure who people seem to either love or hate, although he’s someone more often referenced than actually read on the Right, which is unfortunate. And really, in order to appreciate Evola, you need to be willing to step back from the everyday world and look at just about everything from the exact opposite perspective that we’re conditioned to look at them these days, and that’s not easy for most people. So in that sense, Evola most definitely isn’t a thinker for everyone. And to be fair, he made it clear in his work that he wasn’t interested in addressing himself to the masses. He wanted to speak to the spiritual elite which he believed was the real driving force behind culture and history. So from a modern perspective, the sort of ideas that Evola propagated are about as far removed from our present-day reality as possible, and yet I think he remains relevant to us, as I’ll get into later. Certainly, the mainstream media thinks Evola is relevant. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the article [2] The New York Times ran in February, which tried to suggest that Steve Bannon is supposedly some sort of disciple of Evola, and which resulted in my inbox becoming clogged with messages from people sending me the link and asking, “Did you see this?”

I have to address this briefly, as it became the source of a lot of annoying rumors. As much as I would like to believe that the White House Chief of Staff is an Evolian, an objective look at the facts quickly dispels this idea. It’s true that Bannon mentioned Evola once in passing in a talk he gave to the Vatican [3] in 2014 where he was speaking about “the global tea party movement,” but to read any significance into it is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Here is everything Bannon has ever said about Evola publicly:

When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an advisor [Alexander Dugin] who hearkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early twentieth century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian Fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.

evola1.jpgAll this proves is that Bannon has heard of Evola. It no more indicates that Bannon is a traditionalist than Obama referencing Mao in passing means that he is a Maoist. And it isn’t even an accurate statement, since it certainly can’t be said that traditionalism led to Fascism, as it didn’t even exist prior to the advent of Fascism in Italy in 1922, so clearly Bannon doesn’t even have a good understanding of it, nor is he speaking of it favorably.

Bannon went on to say:

One of the reasons is that they [the traditionalists] believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism – and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. . . I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. However, we, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes – particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism – and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing.

What he said is a bit confusing, since he’s equating Evola and traditionalism with Fascism, and then in turn with Putin, which is pretty ridiculous in itself, but it seems that what he means by “tradition” is “family values” and conservative canards of that sort which wax lyrical about the wonders of the 1950s or the nineteenth century (or I guess these days even the 1980s, which, as an American in his 40s who lived through Reagan’s America, is still baffling to me). What Evola meant by capital-T Tradition was something very different from the lower case-t traditions so beloved by conservatives, but I’ll get into that later.

So really, given that this is the sole reference to Evola that Bannon has ever made, while he is most likely the first major American political figure who has even heard of Evola, it’s nevertheless pretty clear that Evola doesn’t have any real significance for him, and still less for Trump. All it really demonstrates are the failing standards of journalism in America and the increasing stupidity of the Left. It’s just yet another attempt by them to try to link Trump’s administration to fascism. On the plus side, it did have the interesting effect of sending Evola’s main work, Revolt Against the Modern World [4], to the number one spot [5] in Amazon’s “New Age” category for a couple of months. Although I don’t want to sound as if I’m belittling Bannon, since he does have some fascinating interests, including one report I read which claimed that Bannon has studied the Hindu Bhagavad Gita [6] and cited it on occasion – something which Evola would certainly have approved of.

But before I get into what Evola has to tell us today, I want to tell a bit about his background. Evola never wrote much about himself, but he did pass on a few things, and scholars have pieced together some of the rest. He was born in 1898 as Giulio Evola in Rome, where he was to live for his entire life, but as an adult he assumed the ancient Roman form of his name, Julius. He’s often referred to as “Baron” Evola, although as far as has been determined, he held no actual title and never used one himself, and thus it seems to be an honorific bestowed by his admirers in reference to his aristocratic origins – Evola’s family originally came from the Sicilian nobility.


He studied engineering at university, although he refused to take a degree since he considered doing so too bourgeois – which is the exact opposite of the attitude of most American university students today, where they’d be happy to forego all the studying and just get the degree. By then, the First World War had broken out, and Evola served as an artillery officer in the Italian army. He didn’t stick with engineering, however, and after the war he soon became the leading exponent of the Dadaist avant-garde art movement in Italy. In fact, I don’t know if this is still the case, but I have heard that at least at one time, one of Evola’s paintings [7] used to be on display in the entrance hall of the Modern Art Museum in Rome.

Not much is known about Evola during this period, but he sometimes hinted at having led a rather bohemian existence. He did write about taking psychedelic drugs at this time, which was one of the experiences which led him to take an interest in mysticism. We also know that he was friends with the Russian Satanist and occultist Maria de Naglowska, who wrote a series of books on sex magick, some of which Evola wrote introductions for – so read what you want into that. Evola was also an avid mountain climber.

The 1920s saw Evola pass through several phases which ended with him coming around to the traditionalist perspective that would remain more or less the same for the rest of his life. He found the nihilism inherent in avant-garde circles untenable, and soon became interested in the Idealist philosophical tradition. It was here that he first encountered the idea that the world which we experience through our senses isn’t the “real” world, something which is also a fundamental teaching of many of the ancient religious and mystical traditions. He also developed the idea of what he termed the “Absolute Individual,” and he called the system of thought surrounding it “Magical Idealism.” Already drawing on Asian sacred doctrines, Evola identified the Absolute Individual with certain Taoist notions, in that the Absolute Individual is a type of man who frees himself from the limitations of the individual ego and attains a transcendent, impersonal perspective akin to what is usually attributed to the gods. He wrote several large books on this theme, which were his first publications.

Evola ultimately found Western philosophy too narrow, however, and before long he became much more interested in occult and religious doctrines, especially, but not only, those of the East. In 1927, Evola was one of the founding members of the UR Group, which many scholars and practitioners have agreed was one of the most serious attempts to study and practice occult techniques anywhere in modern times. Evola’s involvement was short-lived, however, and he left the group the following year.

The 1920s were also, of course, the time when Mussolini and the Fascists took power in Italy. Evola greeted the rise of the Fascists favorably. Early on, the Italian Fascists were strongly Nietzschean and hostile to Christianity, as was Evola himself, as he considered Christianity to be a foreign, weak, Judaic element that had imposed itself on essentially pagan and imperial Europe, and he believed that the egalitarianism and universalism of Christianity’s teachings opened the door for liberalism and Communism. This argument is not unique to Evola, and I’m sure many of you have heard it reiterated elsewhere.

traditionalism-propaganda41.pngBy the late 1920s, however, Mussolini recognized that he needed to reconcile with the Catholic Church if he was going to retain power. Alarmed by this development, Evola published perhaps his most controversial book, Pagan Imperialism, where he called for Fascist Italy to reject Christianity and return to its roots in the ancient traditions of the Roman Empire. The book didn’t have the desired effect, however, as Mussolini signed a pact with the Vatican in 1929, which among other things established it as an independent state. In addition to the book being blacklisted by the Vatican, Evola also earned himself a lot of enemies, including many prominent people within the Fascist Party itself, and for years he only went out in public accompanied by bodyguards. Evola regretted this book in later years, not because of the backlash against it but because he felt that the ideas he had expressed in it weren’t yet mature enough. While Evola always considered Christianity to be something inappropriate for Europeans, his stance on it softened, and in later years it’s clear from his writings that while it wasn’t his ideal, he recognized that a Christian Europe was far preferable to a secular or a Communist one.

By the end of the 1920s, Evola had also discovered the thinker who was to have a more decisive influence on his life than any other: René Guénon. Guénon was a French metaphysician who was, from the standpoint of religious studies, very possibly the most important thinker of the twentieth century.  He wrote dozens of books describing the worldview that he saw as being common to all the world’s religious and esoteric traditions, and cataloguing and explaining their sacred symbols.

Guénon decried all forms of progressivism, and upheld the teachings found in many of the world’s religious traditions which teach that, contrary to the modern view, civilizations begin in a state of perfection and then gradually decay into degeneracy, and that the forms of technical and scientific progress that modern man is so proud of are in fact mere illusions, and that while he gains greater power over the material world, man is in fact becoming weaker and sicker in a physical and spiritual sense.

Another of Guénon’s crucial insights was the idea of Tradition. This idea of Tradition holds that at the core of all the world’s religious and mystical traditions, there is a single metaphysical reality which reveals itself to men at certain crucial points in time, and that it assumes different outward forms depending on the place and time that it manifests itself and solidifies as religion. This may sound suspiciously New-Agey, but Guénon was quite strict on the fact that he did not believe that one could combine several different traditions into one, but had to accept each on its own terms as a metaphysical whole, and also he believed that esoteric knowledge could only be conveyed by properly initiated authorities, and as a result he rejected all of what we would call “New Age” thought as subversive and counter-traditional.

As I mentioned before, it’s important to distinguish between Tradition and tradition in the usual sense. A tradition, as in for example giving gifts to loved ones at Christmas, might be a positive form of cultural continuity, and it might even be connected to the metaphysical in some way (in this case, to the celebration of a holy day), but these lesser traditions form the outermost layer of tradition, and can change with time, whereas the core of Tradition is eternal and unchanging throughout time.


The last important element of Guénon’s worldview that is important to mention is the cycle of ages. All the ancient civilizations, including both the Nordic and Greco-Roman traditions, had a sense of time as occurring in a sequence that begins with a Golden Age, and then passes through a series of gradually declining ages until it reaches a final age of darkness after which everything is destroyed, and then the entire cycle repeats itself. Guénon and Evola, consistently with most other modern spiritual figures, identified the age we are living in now as the final age, or Kali Yuga, as it is called in both Hinduism and Buddhism. In the ancient Scandinavian religion, the equivalent age was the Wolf Age. Lest this seems like just some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, let me quote a few examples from the Hindu scriptures that describe the characteristics of Kali Yuga:

In Kali Yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man’s good birth, proper behavior, and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one’s power.

Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one’s expertise in sex.

A person’s propriety will be seriously questioned if he does not earn a good living. And one who is very clever at juggling words will be considered a learned scholar.

He who can maintain a family will be regarded as an expert man, and the principles of religion will be observed only for the sake of reputation.

Cities will be dominated by thieves, the Vedas will be contaminated by speculative interpretations of atheists, political leaders will virtually consume the citizens, and the so-called priests and intellectuals will be devotees of their bellies and genitals.

When irreligion becomes prominent in the family, the women of the family become corrupt, and from the degradation of womanhood comes unwanted population.

These are just a few of many such examples. Whatever one thinks of Hinduism as a religion, this description certainly seems uncannily accurate in our present world.


To get back to Evola, he quickly came to see Guénon as the definitive scholar of esotericism, and many of Guénon’s basic ideas were to form the basis of Evola’s work for the rest of his life. He was no uncritical disciple, however, and there were significant differences in their respective approaches to Tradition. Evola, for instance, identified the Primordial Tradition from which all the other religions later emerged as being the same thing as the Hyperborean, Aryan, masculine, and solar tradition, and saw later religions, especially the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as lunar, feminine, degenerated forms of it. He still believed that they were legitimate vehicles for esoteric knowledge, but that they were lesser forms of religion than, for example, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or the pre-Christian religions of Europe. By the same token, Evola was not a neo-pagan. While he respected the pagan European religions and frequently referenced them in his work, he thought their time had passed and that there was no meaningful way to resurrect them in the modern world – in fact, he thought that people who try to bring them back were actually counter-traditional.

But while Evola saw religion as the key to overcoming the problems of the modern world, he didn’t understand it in the sense of going to church on Sundays or following the Ten Commandments. He thought that those outer forms of religion were necessary for the normies, but Evola’s interest was always in the spiritual elite, and the aspects of religion that most interested him were those that could be used to overcome the self and to increase one’s power to a godlike state – essentially the same as the goal of the Absolute Individual that he had written about earlier, but relying on the practices of the mystics and ascetics of the ancient religions. And while the idea of aiming at becoming a god may sound crazy to modern ears, I should point out that many of the pre-Christian religious texts maintain that such a thing is indeed possible for a very few superior, self-realized individuals.

I’ve scarcely done justice to Evola’s esoteric thought, but it’s so massive and complex that there’s no way I can give a comprehensive overview of it in the time I have tonight. Those who are interested in learning more about it should consult Evola’s books on the subject – most of the major ones have already been translated – and especially his main work, Revolt Against the Modern World, where he really outlines his entire worldview. The Path of Cinnabar [8], his autobiography, also gives a good overview of his ideas.

reco.jpgIntroducing Evola’s concept of Tradition, however, is necessary for understanding his relationship with politics, which is what I want to talk about now. As I said, Evola was on the outs with the Fascists after he published Pagan Imperialism. But Evola saw Fascism – not just Italian Fascism, but all the fascist movements of Europe – not as something Traditional in the true sense, since fascism by its very nature was something very modern and revolutionary, but at least as something which preserved certain elements of the traditional world, and which could possibly serve as a bridge toward an eventual restoration of Tradition. For Evola, Tradition could only be maintained in a civilization which had a legitimate hierarchy, in which the priesthood and the warrior class stood in a privileged position over the lower classes. To a Traditionalist, the only legitimate form of government can be a monarch and a nobility ruling in tandem with a priesthood, since, as all sacred traditions have held, the King acts as the bridge between the spiritual and the material worlds. This is necessary so that these upper castes can act as the guardians of Tradition and make sure that the society as a whole continues to be guided by it.

In a time when Europe was torn between Communism on one side and liberal democracy on the other, it was clear to Evola that fascism was by far the best alternative. To Evola, Communism and democracy, especially as represented by the United States, were just two sides of the same coin, since both civilizations have equality as their goal and both allow no place for the sacred to enter into politics. He also saw Fascism as flawed, especially in its socialist aspects – Evola had no tolerance for any form of socialism, whether nationalist or internationalist – but he nevertheless believed that it had the potential to become something better, especially if it were to become guided by Traditional principles.

Evola had no illusions that he could convert the entire Fascist movement into a Traditionalist one, but he did hope that he might be able to help to forge a Traditionalist elite within the Party by influencing some of its intellectuals and leaders. And indeed, Evola did succeed in winning friends among the Fascist elite who were receptive to his message, and in the 1930s Evola was able to begin publishing articles in some of the official Fascist newspapers and journals. He never joined the Fascist Party, however, and in fact referred to his standpoint as “supra-fascist”: transcending what Fascism was already offering. A quote which seems to encapsulate Evola’s attitude toward Fascism is, “To the extent that Fascism follows and defends our principles, so far can we consider ourselves Fascists. So far and no further.” (A quote which I’ve paraphrased to describe my own attitude toward both Trump and the Alt Right.)

youth.jpgEvola didn’t limit himself to Italy, and he forged contacts with fascist and nationalist movements all over Europe during the 1930s. He held Romania’s Iron Guard and its leader, Corneliu Codreanu, in particularly high esteem, respecting them for combining Romanian Orthodox mysticism and rites with their political activities. He also had many contacts among the radical Right in Germany, although during the 1930s the National Socialists kept their distance from him, as they were suspicious of his aristocratic ties (the Nazis saw the old German aristocracy and the Kaiser as an obstacle to their own revolutionary aims). And in fact, Evola didn’t think very highly of the Nazis, either. If you read what he wrote about them, especially in his post-war book, Notes on the Third Reich [9], he doesn’t have much good to say about them, apart from admitting that the milieu they emerged from in the 1920s had had potential, and that he had respect for the SS for being an order along the lines of what he had desired to see in Italy. But the Third Reich itself he faulted for being too populist and bourgeois, and he disliked the Nazis’ scientific, dogmatic approach to race and their obsession with racial purity. If you compare what he says about the Nazis with his book on Italian Fascism, Fascism Viewed from the Right [10], it’s quite clear that he believed that Fascism was the more dynamic and less reactionary of the two movements, and he appreciated the fact that Italy had retained its monarchy, whilst Germany was led only by a “bohemian Corporal,” to quote von Hindenburg.

The early 1940s saw the pinnacle of Evola’s involvement with Italian Fascism when he published a book called Synthesis of a Doctrine of Race. In this book, Evola outlined his idea of the various races of humanity as being like Platonic ideal types, and held that character was as important as biological factors in determining one’s racial essence. While Evola by no means discounted the importance of biology – this is something that his critics often get wrong – he did believe that it was possible for someone of purely Aryan blood to exhibit characteristics one usually finds among Jews or blacks, and that the converse was possible as well. Mussolini himself read the book and was very impressed with it, as he had been looking for a form of racial ideology which Fascism could adopt that would be distinct from Nazi race theory. He invited Evola for a meeting and tasked him with helping to develop a uniquely Fascist form of racialism.

Evola’s involvement with Fascism was cut short in July 1943, when Mussolini was overthrown by his own Fascist Grand Council after the Allies invaded the southern tip of Italy. Evola travelled to Germany and joined with those Fascist leaders who sought to reconstitute a new Fascist state in northern Italy, plans which came to fruition when Mussolini was rescued from prison by Otto Skorzeny in September. Evola was present at Hitler’s headquarters with other Italian leaders when Mussolini was brought there, and he assisted in setting up what became known as the Italian Social Republic. Evola returned to Rome and remained there until it was occupied by the Allies in June 1944. According to Evola’s diary, secret service men came to his mother’s door looking for him, and his mother delayed the men while Evola escaped out the back and then travelled north.

evola13.pngEvola found the Italian Social Republic disappointing, as it was even more strongly socialist in nature than Fascism’s original incarnation. But by this time, in the aftermath of their defeat in Russia and the imminent invasion of the Reich itself by the Allies, the National Socialists in Germany were becoming a lot less strict about picking their allies. Some researchers have claimed that Evola, acting on the Germans’ behalf, made use of his many contacts in the fascist and nationalist groups across Europe to keep many of them engaged in the war. We also know that in 1944, the SS brought Evola to Vienna, where they had archived the many esoteric and Masonic texts they had confiscated during their sweep across Europe. Evola was tasked with cataloging the materials and determining exactly what it was they had. And this was the work that Evola was engaged in during late 1944 and early 1945, while Allied bombers streaked overhead. Evola relates how, during this period, he “tested his fate” by going on solitary walks through the city during air raids, when everyone else was cowering in shelters. And on March 12, 1945, a Russian bomb exploded near Evola on one of these walks, injuring his spine, and he was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

After the war, Evola never again engaged with practical politics in any way, but he remained unapologetic for his views on Fascism and National Socialism, and even in his post-war writings he always restated that they had been superior to anything in our contemporary world. He also became something of a guru to the various Right-wing and neo-fascist groups which emerged in Italy in the first three decades after the war. Indeed, in 1951 he was charged with conspiring to revive Fascism. He was ultimately acquitted of the charges, and as part of his defense, he said, “My principles are only those which were accepted and seen as normal by every well-born person everywhere in the world prior to 1789.”

Although he remained on friendly terms with political activists, it seems that Evola himself gave up on the idea of a political solution to the problems of our age after 1945. His advice, as he offered in post-war writings such as his book Men Among the Ruins [11], was to establish orders of elite individuals who could preserve Traditional principles and pass them down through a chain of initiations until an age would return in which their seeds could again bear fruit. But Evola had no interest in the democratic party politics of our age.

Evola continued to write after the war, but his life otherwise remained unremarkable due to the constraints of his injury. He died at his apartment in Rome on June 11, 1974. But he had already left his mark on the Italian political scene. The leader of the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement, Giorgio Almirante, famously remarked of Evola that he was “our Marcuse, only better.”

So what does Evola have to say to us today? Would he tell us to vote for Trump or Le Pen? Would he tell us to build bombs and blow up the local shopping mall? Would he tell us to find a cave in a mountain somewhere and meditate for the rest of our lives?

yoga.jpgEvola never developed anything like a political program or a plan of action, so in that sense I don’t think he has anything to offer. Evola always addressed the individual who has higher aspirations. So where I think he has value is in helping a Right-inclined individual to cope with living in a liberal, degenerate age.

First of all, I would say that, regardless of what one thinks of the heavy-duty metaphysics underlying his ideas, the concept of Tradition is a valuable one regardless. In our time, when politics is getting pettier than it has ever been before, I think it’s important that we keep in mind that our final goal is not simply ending immigration or voting out the liberals. Ultimately, we stand for a set of principles that have guided our civilization from its origins and that stand above everyday politics. Even if we could send out all of the non-whites from America and Europe tomorrow, the rot that is afflicting all of our minds and souls would still be there. We have to try to put ourselves in the mindset of our ancestors and what made them great. Our approaches might change, but the principles we stand for are timeless. When I’ve tried to think about what it is that most fundamentally distinguishes the various and sundry strands of the Right from the liberals, what it ultimately comes down to is that we believe that there is an essential meaning to things. There is something essential in being an American or a German or an Italian, and that’s why not just anyone can become one, just as there is something essential in being a man or a woman . . . and similarly, there is an essential difference between being a white person engaged in the life of your civilization as opposed to being a pop culture, fast food junkie sleepwalking through history who happens to have white skin.

Second, Evola was certainly hostile to political movements that relied on the masses rather than an elite, and even Fascism was woefully inadequate for him, which means that he no doubt wouldn’t have thought very highly of the populism of our time. But rather than being a dogmatist, I think Evola is just being realistic here. I’ve been involved with the Right in some capacity for about twenty years now, and there’s an ever-growing list of saviors that the Right has latched onto, developed unrealistic expectations for, and then become disillusioned with. Twenty years ago there was Jörg Haider. Ten years ago there was Ron Paul. Three years ago there was Putin. Last year, of course, we had Trump. I don’t mean to suggest that these people aren’t worth supporting or that there is no difference between them and their opponents. Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that none of these people are Rightists in the true sense, and could not act as true Rightists even if they wanted to be, so any support we give to them or people like them is simply to choose the least bad option, not a good option. The system as it is currently constituted will never allow a candidate with genuine Right-wing principles to attain real power. This is something that Evola recognized and why he held himself aloof from the endless games and maneuverings and compromises of party politics, and this is why we should try not to pin our hopes and dreams to any of democracy’s shooting stars, but recognize that we’ve got to keep working in the shadows regardless of whatever’s happening on stage.

And lastly, the idea that we are living in Kali Yuga and that everything is inevitably doomed to collapse may seem like quite a black pill. But as I said before, I think it does accurately describe our situation. And also I think some people who claim to be Traditionalists tend to be too pessimistic when it comes to this, and actually overlook what Evola actually said about the possibilities of our time. In later life, Evola advocated for what he terms apoliteia, by which he meant disengagement from political affairs. But if you really examine what he says on the subject, he never advised that one shouldn’t become involved in politics. Rather, what he meant is that one shouldn’t become attached to whatever result might come from such activities. In this, again, Evola is being consistent with what many of the sacred texts have to say on this. So in other words, sure, get involved with a political party or join the military or vote for Trump or whatever, but do so because it helps you to attain the goals that you set for yourself rather than because you have staked everything on its success and will be shattered if it fails. In Kali Yuga, political restoration may not be possible, but the opportunity still remains for the individual to triumph over modernity in his own way. Besides which, the fact that we may lose the battle doesn’t mean that we are absolved of the responsibility of fighting it and standing for what is true.

32708evola1.jpgThe best illustration of this that I know of comes from the Bhagavad Gita. At the opening, a Prince, Arjuna, is preparing to fight a battle against an opposing army. Although he knows his cause is just, he hates war, and knows that there are members of his own family on the other side who he may have to kill in order to win. The god Krishna is acting as his advisor. Just before the battle, Arjuna loses his resolve, and tells Krishna that he will put down his weapons and go into the forest to meditate instead of fighting. Krishna basically says to him, “Stop being such a pussy! You’re a kshatriya (the Hindu warrior caste)! It’s your job to do your duty and fight for justice. Meditating in the forest is for brahmanas (priests).” The rest of the Gita is Krishna explaining the entire metaphysics of existence, and Arjuna’s place in it, and at the end, of course Arjuna does his duty.

And that’s how I see those of us here tonight. In spite of the million other things you could have been doing in this enormous and hyperactive city tonight, you decided to come here and meet with a group of some of the most hated people in America to listen to a lecture on Julius Evola. That clearly indicates that there’s something in you that has decided that there are more important things than just doing what everyone else expects you to do. So really, we’re already creating the “order” that Evola called for in order to preserve Tradition in the face of degeneracy. So let’s not despair about the latest headlines, but keep our heads up in the knowledge that, whatever happens, we are the ones who stand for what is timeless, and our day of victory will come, whether it is tomorrow or a thousand years from now.

Thank you.

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/05/what-would-evola-do-2/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/5-19-18-1.jpg

[2] article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/world/europe/bannon-vatican-julius-evola-fascism.html

[3] talk he gave to the Vatican: https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.qjWj7aJzb#.pjOBl849J

[4] Revolt Against the Modern World: http://amzn.to/2qTdDpP

[5] number one spot: http://alt-right-news.blogspot.com/2017/02/evola-soars-to-top-of-amazon-charts.html

[6] Bhagavad Gita: http://amzn.to/2qTebfv

[7] paintings: http://www.juliusevola.net/paintings.html

[8] The Path of Cinnabar: http://amzn.to/2qT6iqs

[9] Notes on the Third Reich: http://amzn.to/2qe14Ci

[10] Fascism Viewed from the Right: http://amzn.to/2qTddja

[11] Men Among the Ruins: http://amzn.to/2ry5Oqd

11:59 Publié dans Traditions | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : julius evola, traditionalisme, tradition, john morgan | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

samedi, 05 mai 2018

Evola’s Nietzschean Ethics: A Code of Conduct for the Higher Man in Kali Yuga


Evola’s Nietzschean Ethics:
A Code of Conduct for the Higher Man in Kali Yuga

The subtitle of the English translation of Julius Evola’s Ride the Tiger (Cavalcare la Tigre) promises that it offers “A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul.”[1] [2] As a result, one comes to the work with the expectation that it will constitute a kind of “self-help book” for Traditionalists, for “men against time.” One expects that Evola will offer moral support and perhaps even specific instructions for revolting against the modern world. Unfortunately, the subtitle proves misleading. Ride the Tiger is primarily devoted to an analysis of aspects of the present age of decline (the Kali Yuga): critiques of relativism, scientism, modern art, modern music, and of figures like Heidegger and Sartre; discussions of the decline of marriage, the relation between the sexes, drug use, and so forth. Many of the points Evola makes in this volume are made in his other works, sometimes at greater length and more lucidly.

JEv-FN.jpgFor those seeking something like a “how to” guide for living as a Traditionalist, it is mainly the second division of the book (“In the World Where God is Dead”) that offers something, and chiefly it is to be found in Chapter Eight: “The Transcendent Dimension – ‘Life’ and ‘More than Life.’” My purpose in this essay is to piece together the miniature “survival manual” provided by Chapter Eight – some of which consists of little more than hints, conveyed in Evola’s often frustratingly opaque style. It is my view that what we find in these pages is of profound importance for anyone struggling to hold on to his sanity in the face of the decadence and dishonesty of today’s world. It is also essential reading for anyone seeking to achieve the ideal of “self-overcoming” taught by Evola – seeking, in other words, to “ride the tiger.”

The central figure of the book’s second part is unquestionably Friedrich Nietzsche, to whom Evola repeatedly refers. Evola’s attitude toward Nietzsche is critical. However, it is obvious that Nietzsche exercised a profound and positive influence on him. Indeed, virtually every recommendation Evola makes for living as a Traditionalist – in this section of the work, at least – is somehow derived from Nietzsche. This despite the fact that Nietzsche was not a Traditionalist – a fact of which Evola was well aware, and to which I shall turn later.

In the last paragraph of Chapter Seven, Evola announces that in the next chapter he will consider “a line of conduct during the reign of dissolution that is not suitable for everyone, but for a differentiated type, and especially for the heir to the man of the traditional world, who retains his roots in that world even though he finds himself devoid of any support for it in his outer existence.”[2] [3] This “line of conduct” turns out, in Chapter Eight, to be based entirely on statements made by Nietzsche. That chapter opens with a continuation of the discussion of the man who would be “heir to the man of the traditional world.” Evola writes, “What is more, the essential thing is that such a man is characterized by an existential dimension not present in the predominant human type of recent times – that is, the dimension of transcendence.”[3] [4]

Evola clearly regarded this claim as of supreme importance, since he places the entire sentence just quoted in italics. The sentence is important for two reasons. First, as it plainly asserts, it provides the key characteristic of the “differentiated type” for whom Evola writes, or for whom he prepares the ground. Second, the sentence actually provides the key point on which Evola parts company with Nietzsche: for all the profundity and inspiration Nietzsche can provide us, he does not recognize a “dimension of transcendence.” Indeed, he denigrates the very idea as a projection of “slave morality.” Our first step, therefore, must be to understand exactly what Evola means by “the dimension of transcendence.” Unfortunately, in Ride the Tiger Evola does not make this very easy. To anyone familiar with Evola’s other works, however, his meaning is clear.

“Dimension of transcendence” can be understood as having several distinct, but intimately-related meanings in Evola’s philosophy. First, the term “transcendence” simply refers to something existing apart from, or beyond the world around us. The “aristocrats of the soul” living in the Kali Yuga must live their lives in such a way that they “stand apart from” or transcend the world in which they find themselves. This is the meaning of the phrase “men against time,” which I have already used (and which derives from Savitri Devi). The “differentiated type” of which Evola writes is one who has differentiated himself from the times, and from the men who are like “sleepers” or pashu (beasts). Existing in the world in a physical sense, even playing some role (or roles) in that world, one nevertheless lives wholly apart from it at the same time, in a spiritual sense. This is the path of those who aim to “ride the tiger”: they do not separate themselves from the decay, like monks or hermits; instead they live in the midst of it, but remain uncorrupted. (This is also little different from what the Gurdjieffian tradition calls “the fourth way,” and it is the essence of the “Left-Hand Path” as described by Evola and others.)


However, there is another, deeper sense of the “dimension of transcendence.” The type of man of which Evola speaks is not simply reacting to the world in which he finds himself. This is not what his “apartness” consists in – not fundamentally. Nor does it consist in some kind of intellectual commitment to a “philosophy of Traditionalism,” as found in books by Evola and others. Rather, “transcendence” in the deepest sense refers to the Magnum Opus that is the aim of the “magic” or spiritual alchemy discussed by Evola in his most important works (chiefly Introduction to Magic and The Hermetic Tradition). “Transcendence” means the overcoming of the world and of the ego – really, of all manifestation, whether it is objective (“out there”) or subjective (“in here”). Such overcoming is the work of what is called in Vedanta the “witnessing consciousness.” Evola frequently calls this “the Self.” (For more on this teaching, see my essays “What is Odinism? [5]” in TYR, Vol. 4 [6], and “On Being and Waking” in TYR, Vol. 5, forthcoming [7].)

These different senses of “transcendence” are intertwined. It is only through the second sense of “transcendence,” of the overcoming of all manifestation, that the first sense, standing apart from the modern world, can truly be achieved. The man who is “heir to the man of the traditional world” can retain “his roots in that world” only by the achievement of a state of being that is identical to that of the “highest type” of the traditional world. That type was also “differentiated”: set apart from other men. Fundamentally, however, to be a “differentiated type” does not mean to be differentiated from others. It refers to the state of one who has actively differentiated “himself” from all else, including “the ego.” This active differentiation is the same thing as “identification” with the Self – which, for Evola, is not the dissolution of oneself in an Absolute Other, but the transmutation of “oneself” into “the Self.” Further, the metaphysical differentiation just described is the only sure and true path to the “differentiation” exhibited by the man who lives in the Kali Yuga, but stands apart from it at the same time.

Much later I will discuss how and why Nietzsche fails to understand “the dimension of transcendence,” and how it constitutes the fatal flaw in his philosophy. Recognizing this, Evola nonetheless proceeds to draw from Nietzsche a number of principles which constitute the spirit of “the overman.”[4] [8] Evola offers these as characterizing his own ideal type – with the crucial caveat that, contra Nietzsche, these principles are only truly realizable in a man who has realized in himself the “dimension of transcendence.” Basically, there are ten such principles cited by Evola, each of which he derives from statements made by Nietzsche. The passage in which these occur is highly unusual, since it consists in one long sentence (lasting more than a page), with each principle set off by semi-colons. I will now consider each of these points in turn.

1. “The power to make a law for oneself, the ‘power to refuse and not to act when one is pressed to affirmation by a prodigious force and an enormous tension.’”[5] [9] This first principle is crucial, and must be discussed at length. Earlier, in Chapter Seven (“Being Oneself”), Evola quotes Nietzsche saying, “We must liberate ourselves from morality so that we can live morally.”[6] [10] Evola correctly notes that in such statements, and in the idea of “making a law for oneself,” Nietzsche is following in the footsteps of Kant, who insisted that genuine morality is based upon autonomy – which literally means “a law to oneself.” This is contrasted by Kant to heteronomy (a term Evola also uses in this same context): morality based upon external pressures, or upon fealty to laws established independent of the subject (e.g., following the Ten Commandments, conforming to public opinion, acting so as to win the approval of others, etc.). This is the meaning of saying, “we must liberate ourselves from morality [i.e., from externally imposed moral commandments] so that we can live morally [i.e., autonomously].” In order for the subject’s standpoint to be genuinely moral, he must in a sense “legislate” the moral law for himself, and affirm it as reasonable. Indeed, for Kant, ultimately the authority of the moral law consists in our “willing” it as rational.

Of course, Nietzsche’s position is not Kant’s, though Evola is not very helpful in explaining to us what the difference consists in. He writes that Nietzsche’s notion of autonomy is “on the same lines” as Kant’s “but with the difference that the command is absolutely internal, separate from any external mover, and is not based on a hypothetical law extracted from practical reason that is valid for all and revealed to man’s conscience as such, but rather on one’s own specific being.”[7] [11] There are a good deal of confusions here – so much so that one wonders if Evola has even read Kant. For instance, Kant specifically rejects the idea of an “external mover” for morality (which is the same thing as heteronomy). Further, there is nothing “hypothetical” about Kant’s moral law, the “categorical imperative,” which he specifically defines in contrast to “hypothetical imperatives.” We may also note the vagueness of saying that “the command” must be based “on one’s specific being.”

jev-cumbres.jpgStill, through this gloom one may detect exactly the position that Evola correctly attributes to Nietzsche. Like Kant, Nietzsche demands that the overman practice autonomy, that he give a law to himself. However, Kant held that our self-legislation simultaneously legislates for others: the law I give to myself is the law I would give to any other rational being. The overman, by contrast, legislates for himself only – or possibly for himself and the tiny number of men like him. If we recognize fundamental qualitative differences between human types, then we must consider the possibility that different rules apply to them. Fundamental to Kant’s position is the egalitarian assertion that people do not get to “play by their own rules” (indeed, for Kant the claim to be an exception to general rules, or to make an exception for oneself, is the marker of immorality). If we reject this egalitarianism, then it does indeed follow that certain special individuals get to play by their own rules.

This does not mean that for the self-proclaimed overman “anything goes.” Indeed, any individual who would interpret the foregoing as licensing arbitrary self-indulgence of whims or passions would be immediately disqualified as a potential overman. This will become crystal clear as we proceed with the rest of Evola’s “ten principles” in Chapter Eight. For the moment, simply look once more at the wording Evola borrows from Nietzsche in our first “principle”: the “power to refuse and not to act when one is pressed to affirmation by a prodigious force and an enormous tension.” To refuse what? What sort of force? What sort of tension? The claim seems vague, yet it is actually quite clear: autonomy means, fundamentally, the power to say no to whatever forces or tensions press us to affirm them or give way to them.

The “forces” in question could be internal or external: they could be the force of social and environmental circumstances; they could be the force of my own passions, habits, and inclinations. It is a great folly to think that my passions and such are “mine,” and that in following them I am “free.” Whatever creates an “enormous tension” in me and demands I give way, whether it comes from “in me” or “outside me” is precisely not mine. Only the autonomous “I” that can see this is “mine,” and only it can say no to these forces. It has “the power to refuse and not to act.” Essentially, Nietzsche and Evola are talking about self-mastery. This is the “law” that the overman – and the “differentiated type” – gives to himself. And clearly it is not “universalizable”; the overman does not and cannot expect others to follow him in this.[8] [12]

In short, this first principle asks of us that we cultivate in ourselves the power to refuse or to negate – in one fashion or other – all that which would command us. Again, this applies also to forces within me, such as passions and desires. Such refusal may not always amount to literally thwarting or annihilating forces that influence us. In some cases, this is impossible. Our “refusal” may sometimes consist only in seeing the force in question, as when I see that I am acting out of ingrained habit, even when, at that moment, I am powerless to resist. Such “seeing” already places distance between us and the force that would move us: it says, in effect, “I am not that.” As we move through Evola’s other principles, we will learn more about the exercise of this very special kind of autonomy.

2. “The natural and free asceticism moved to test its own strength by gauging ‘the power of a will according to the degree of resistance, pain, and torment that it can bear in order to turn them to its own advantage.’”[9] [13] Here we have another expression of the “autonomy” of the differentiated type. Such a man tests his own strength and will, by deliberately choosing that which is difficult. Unlike the Last Man, who has left “the regions where it is hard to live,”[10] [14] the overman/differentiated man seeks them out.

Evola writes that “from this point of view everything that existence offers in the way of evil, pain, and obstacles . . . is accepted, even desired.”[11] [15] This may be the most important of all the points that Evola makes in this chapter – and it is a principle that can serve as a lifeline for all men living in the Kali Yuga, or in any time. If we can live up to this principle, then we have made ourselves truly worthy of the mantle of “overman.” The idea is this: can I say “yes” to whatever hardship life offers me? Can I use all of life’s suffering and evils as a way to test and to transform myself? Can I forge myself in the fire of suffering? And, going a step further, can I desire hardship and suffering? It is one thing, of course, to accept some obstacle or calamity as a means to test myself. It is quite another to actively desire such things.


Here we must consider our feelings very carefully. Personally, I do not fear my own death nearly as much as the death of those close to me. And I fear my own physical incapacitation and decline more than death. Is it psychologically realistic for me to desire the death of my loved ones, or desire a crippling disease, as a way to test myself? No, it is not – and this is not what Evola and Nietzsche mean. Rather, the mental attitude in question is one where we say a great, general “yes” to all that life can bring in the way of hardship. Further, we welcome such challenges, for without them we would not grow. It is not that we desire this specific calamity or that, but we do desire, in general, to be tested. And, finally, we welcome such testing with supreme confidence: whatever life flings at me, I will overcome. In a sense, I will absorb all negativity and only grow stronger by means of it.

3. Evola next speaks of the “principle of not obeying the passions, but of holding them on a leash.” Then he quotes Nietzsche: “greatness of character does not consist in not having such passions: one must have them to the greatest degree, but held in check, and moreover doing this with simplicity, not feeling any particular satisfaction thereby.”[12] [16] This follows from the very first principle, discussed earlier. To repeat, giving free rein to our passions has nothing to do with autonomy, freedom, or mastery. Indeed, it is the primary way in which the common man finds himself controlled.

To see this, one must be able to recognize “one’s own” passions as, in reality, other. I do not choose these things, or the power they exert. What follows from this, however, is not necessarily thwarting those passions or “denying oneself.” As Evola explains in several of his works, the Left-Hand Path consists precisely in making use of that which would enslave or destroy a lesser man. We hold the passions “on a leash,” Evola says. The metaphor is appropriate. Our passions must be like well-trained dogs. Such animals are filled with passionate intensity for the chase – but their master controls them completely: at a command, they run after their prey, but only when commanded. As Nietzsche’s words suggest, the greatest man is not the man whose passions are weak. A man with weak passions finds them fairly easy to control! The superior man is one whose passions are incredibly strong – one in whom the “life force” is strong – but who holds those passions in check.

4. Nietzsche writes, “the superior man is distinguished from the inferior by his intrepidity, by his defiance of unhappiness.”[13] [17] Here too we have invaluable advice for living. The intrepid man is fearless and unwavering; he endures. But why does Nietzsche connect this with “defiance of unhappiness”? The answer is that just as the average man is a slave to the passions that sweep him away at any given time, so he is also a prisoner of his “moods.” Most men rise in the morning and find themselves in one mood or another: “today I am happy,” “today I am sad.” They accept that, in effect, some determination has been made for them, and that they are powerless in the matter. If the unhappiness endures, they have a “disease” which they look to drugs or alcohol to cure.

evola-the-yoga-of-power.jpgAs with the passions, the average man “owns” his moods: “this unhappiness is mine, it is me,” he says, in effect. The superior man learns to see his moods as if they were the weather – or, better yet, as if they were minor demons besetting him: external mischief makers, to whom he has the power to say “yes” or “no.” The superior man, upon finding that he feels unhappiness, says “ah yes, there it is again.” Immediately, seeing “his” unhappiness as other – as a habit, a pattern, a kind of passing mental cloud – he refuses identification with it. And he sets about intrepidly conquering unhappiness. He will not acquiesce to it.

5. The above does not mean, however, that the superior man intrepidly sets about trying to make himself “happy.” Evola quotes Nietzsche as saying “it is a sign of regression when pleasure begins to be considered as the highest principle.”[14] [18] The superior man responds with incredulity to those who “point the way to happiness,” and respond, “But what does happiness mean to us?”[15] [19] The preoccupation with “happiness” is characteristic of the inferior modern type Nietzsche refers to as “the Last Man” (“‘We have invented happiness,’ say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth.”[16] [20]

But if we do not seek happiness, in the name of what do we “defy unhappiness”? Answer: in the name of greatness, self-mastery, self-overcoming. Kant can be of some limited help to us here as well, for he said that the aim of life should not be happiness, but making oneself worthy of happiness. Many individuals may achieve happiness (actually, the dumber one is, the greater one’s chances). But only some are worthy of happiness. The superior man is worthy of happiness, whether he has it or not. And he does not care either way. He does not even aim, really, to be worthy of happiness, but to be worthy of greatness, like Aristotle’s “great-souled man” (megalopsuchos).[17] [21]

6. According to Evola, the superior man claims the right (quoting Nietzsche) “to exceptional acts as attempts at victory over oneself and as acts of freedom . . . to assure oneself, with a sort of asceticism, a preponderance and a certitude of one’s own strength of will.”[18] [22] This point is related to the second principle, discussed earlier. The superior man is master, first and foremost, of himself. He therefore seeks opportunities to test himself in exceptional ways. Evola provides an extended discussion of one form of such self-testing in his Meditations on the Peaks: Mountain Climbing as Metaphor for the Spiritual Quest (and, of course, for Evola mountain climbing was not entirely metaphorical!). Through such opportunities, one “assures oneself” of the strength of one’s will. But there is more: through such tests, one’s will becomes even stronger.

“Asceticism” suggests self-denial. But how does such testing of the will constitute “denying oneself”? The key, of course, lies in asking “what is my self?” The self that is denied in such acts of “self-mastery” is precisely the self that seeks to hold on to life, to safety, to security, and to its ephemeral preoccupations and possessions. We “deny” this self precisely by threatening what it values most. To master it is to progressively still its voice and loosen its hold on us. It is in this fashion that a higher self – what Evola, again, calls the Self – grows in us.

7. The superior man affirms the freedom which includes “keeping the distance which separates us, being indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privations, even to life itself.”[19] [23] This mostly reaffirms points made earlier. But what is “the distance that separates us”? Here Nietzsche could be referring to hierarchy, or what he often calls “the order of rank.” He could also be referring to the well-known desire of the superior man for apartness, verging sometimes on a desire for isolation. The superior man takes himself away from others; he has little need for the company of human beings, unless they are like himself. And even then, he desires the company of such men only in small and infrequent doses. He is repulsed by crowds, and by situations that force him to feel the heat and breath and press of others. Such feelings are an infallible marker of the superior soul – but they are not a “virtue” to be cultivated. One either has such feelings, or one does not. One is either the superior type, or a “people person.”

jev-bow.jpgIf we consult the context in which the quote appears – an important section of Twilight of the Idols – Nietzsche offers us little help in understanding specifically what he means by “the distance that separates us.” But the surrounding context is a goldmine of reflections on the superior type, and it is surprising that Evola does not quote it more fully. Nietzsche remarks that “war educates for freedom” (a point on which Evola reflects at length in his Metaphysics of War), then writes:

For what is freedom? Having the will to responsibility for oneself. Maintaining the distance that separates us. Becoming indifferent to trouble, hardships, deprivation, even to life. Being ready to sacrifice people to one’s cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts, the instincts that celebrate war and winning, dominate other instincts, for example the instinct for “happiness.” The human being who has become free, not to mention the spirit that has become free, steps all over the contemptible sort of wellbeing dreamt of by grocers, Christians, cows, women, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free human being is a warrior.[20] [24]

The rest of the passage is well worth reading.

8. Evola tells us that the superior man rejects “the insidious confusion between discipline and enfeeblement.” The goal of discipline is not to produce weakness, but a greater strength. “He who does not dominate is weak, dissipated, inconstant.” To discipline oneself is to dominate one’s passions. As we saw in our discussion of the third principle, this does not mean stamping out the passions or denying them. Neither does it mean indulging them: the man who heedlessly indulges his passions becomes “weak, dissipated, inconstant.” Rather, the superior man learns how to control his passions and to make use of them as a means for self-transformation. It is only when the passions are mastered – when we have reached the point that we cannot be swept away by them – that we can give expression to them in such a way that they become vehicles for self-overcoming.

Evola quotes Nietzsche: “Excess is a reproach only against those who have no right to it; and almost all the passions have been brought into ill repute on account of those who were not sufficiently strong to employ them.”[21] [25] The convergence of Nietzsche’s position with Evola’s portrayal of the Left-Hand Path could not be clearer. The superior man has a right to “excess” because, unlike the common man, he is not swept away by the passions. He holds them “on a leash” (see earlier), and uses them as means to transcend the ego, and to achieve a higher state. The common man, who identifies with his passions, becomes wholly a slave to them, and is sucked dry. He gives “excess” a bad reputation.

9. Evola’s penultimate principle is in the spirit of Nietzsche, but does not quote from him. Evola writes: “To point the way of those who, free from all bonds, obeying only their own law, are unbending in obedience to it and above every human weakness.”[22] [26] The first words of this passage are somewhat ambiguous: what does Evola mean by “to point the way of those who . . .” (the original Italian – l’indicare la via di coloro che – is no more helpful). Perhaps what is meant here is simply that the superior type points the way for others. He serves as an example – or he serves as the vanguard. This is not, of course, an ideal to which just anyone can aspire. But the example of the superior man can serve to “awaken” others who have the same potential. This was, indeed, something like Nietzsche’s own literary intention: to point the way to the Overman; to awaken those whose souls are strong enough.

10. Finally, Evola tells us that the superior type is “heir to the equivocal virtus of the Renaissance despots,” and that he is “capable of generosity, quick to offer manly aid, of ‘generous virtue,’ magnanimity, and superiority to his own individuality.”[23] [27] Here Evola alludes to Nietzsche’s qualified admiration for Cesare Borgia (who Nietzsche offers as an example of what he calls the “men of prey”). The rest of the quote, however, calls to mind Aristotle’s description of the great-souled man – especially the use of the term “magnanimity,” which some translators prefer to “greatness of soul.”[24] [28] The superior man is not a beast. He is capable of such virtues as generosity and benevolence. This is because he is free from that which holds lesser men in thrall. The superior man can be generous with such things as money and possessions, for these have little or no value for him. He can be generous in overlooking the faults of others, for he expects little of them anyway. He can even be generous in forgiving his enemies – when they are safely at his feet. The superior man can do all of this because he possesses “superiority to his own individuality”: he is not bound to the pretensions of his own ego, and to the worldly goods the ego craves.

FNiet-dessins.jpgEvola’s very long sentence about the superior man now ends with the following summation:

all these are the positive elements that the man of Tradition also makes his own, but which are only comprehensible and attainable when ‘life’ is ‘more than life,’ that is, through transcendence. They are values attainable only by those in whom there is something else, and something more, than mere life.

In other words, Nietzsche presents us with a rich and inspiring portrayal of the superior man. And yet, the principles he discusses will have a positive result, and serve the “man of Tradition,” only if we turn Nietzsche on his head. Earlier in Chapter Eight, Evola writes: “Nietzsche’s solution of the problem of the meaning of life, consisting in the affirmation that this meaning does not exist outside of life, and that life in itself is meaning . . . is valid only on the presupposition of a being that has transcendence as its essential component.” (Evola places this entire statement in italics.) In other words, to put the matter quite simply, the meaning of life as life itself is only valid when a man’s life is devoted to transcendence (in the senses discussed earlier). Or we could say, somewhat more obscurely, that Nietzsche’s points are valid when man’s life transcends life.

Evola’s claim goes to the heart of his criticism of Nietzsche. A page later, he speaks of conflicting tendencies within Nietzsche’s thought. On the one hand, we have a “naturalistic exaltation of life” that runs the risk of “a surrender of being to the simple world of instincts and passions.” The danger here is that these will then assert themselves “through the will, making it their servant.”[25] [29] Nietzsche, of course, is famous for his theory of the “will to power.” But surrender to the baser impulses of ego and organism will result in those impulses hijacking will and using it for their own purposes. One then becomes a slave to instincts and passions, and the antithesis of a free, autonomous being.

On the other hand, one finds in Nietzsche “testimonies to a reaction to life that cannot arise out of life itself, but solely from a principle superior to it, as revealed in a characteristic phrase: ‘Spirit is the life that cuts through life’ (Geist ist das Leben, das selber ins Leben schneidet).” In other words, Nietzsche’s thought exhibits a fundamental contradiction – a contradiction that cannot be resolved within his thought, but only in Evola’s. One can find other tensions in Nietzsche’s thought as well. I might mention, for example, his evident preference for the values of “master morality,” and his analysis of “slave morality” as arising from hatred of life — which nevertheless co-exist with his relativism concerning values. Yet there is so much in Nietzsche that is brilliant and inspiring, we wish we could accept the whole and declare ourselves Nietzscheans. But we simply cannot. This turns out to be no problem, since Evola absorbs what is positive and useful in Nietzsche, and places it within the context of Tradition. In spite of what Nietzsche himself may say, one feels he is more at home with Tradition, than with “perspectivism.”[26] [30]

Evola’s ten “Nietzschean principles,” reframed for the “man of Tradition,” provide an inspiring guide for life in this Wolf Age. They point the way. They show us what we must become. These are ideas that challenge us to become worthy of them.


[1] [31] Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul, trans. Joscelyn Godwin and Constance Fontana (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2003).

[2] [32] Evola, 46, my italics.

[3] [33] Evola, 47.

[4] [34] Übermensch; translated in Ride the Tiger as “superman.”

[5] [35] Quoting Nietzsche, Will to Power, section 778.

[6] [36] Evola, 41. Translator notes “adapted from the aphorism in Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 7, part 1, 371.”

[7] [37] Evola, 41.

[8] [38] There is a great deal more that can be said here about the difference between Kantian and Nietzschean “autonomy.” Indeed, there is an argument to be made that Kant is much closer to Nietzsche than Evola (or Nietzsche) would allow. Ultimately, one sees the stark difference between Kant and Nietzsche in the “egalitarianism” of the different formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative. How can a man who is qualitatively different and superior to others commit to following no other law than what he would will all others follow? How can he affirm the inherent “dignity” in others, who seem to have no dignity at all? Should he affirm their potential dignity, which they themselves simply do not see and may never live up to? But suppose they are so limited, constitutionally, that actualizing that “human dignity” is more or less impossible for them? Kant wants us to affirm that whatever men may actually be, they are nonetheless potentially rational, and thus they possess inherent dignity. For those of us who have seen more of the world than Königsberg, and who have soured on the dreams of Enlightenment, this rings hollow. And how can the overman be expected to adhere to the (self-willed) command to always treat others as ends in themselves, but never as means only – when the vast bulk of humanity seems hardly good for anything other than being used as means to the ends of greater men?

[9] [39] The translator’s note: “Adapted from Twilight of the Idols, ‘Skirmishes of an Untimely Man,’ sect. 38, where, however, it is ‘freedom’ that is thus gauged.” Beware: Evola sometimes alters Nietzsche’s wording.

[10] [40] Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Zarathustra’s Prologue,” 5.

[11] [41] Evola, 49.

[12] [42] Evola, 49. The Will to Power, sect. 928.

[13] [43] Will to Power, sect. 222.

[14] [44] Will to Power, sect. 790.

[15] [45] Will to Power, sect. 781.

[16] [46] Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Zarathustra’s Prologue,” 5.

[17] [47] Aristotle also said that the aim of human life is “happiness” (eudaimonia) – but “happiness” has a connotation here different from the familiar one.

[18] [48] Will to Power, sect. 921.

[19] [49] Twilight of the Idols, “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man,” sect. 38. Italics added by Evola.

[20] [50] See Twilight of the Idols, trans. Richard Polt (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1997), 74-75.

[21] [51] Here I have substituted the translation of Walter Kaufmann and R. G. Hollingdale for the one provided in Ride the Tiger, as it is more accurate and concise. See The Will to Power, trans. Kaufmann and Hollingdale (New York: Vintage Books, 1967), 408.

[22] [52] Evola, 49.

[23] [53] The translators of Ride the Tiger direct us here to Beyond Good and Evil, sect. 260.

[24] [54] Grandezza d’animo literally translates to “greatness of soul.”

[25] [55] Evola, 48.

[26] [56] Evola writes (p. 52), “[Nietzsche’s] case illustrates in precise terms what can, and indeed must, occur in a human type in which transcendence has awakened, yes, but who is uncentered with regard to it.”


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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/evolas-nietzschean-ethics/

lundi, 26 février 2018

“Da Wagner al jazz”, un nuovo libro su Julius Evola

Giuseppe Brienza

mardi, 09 janvier 2018

Marcos Ghio - Pensamiento Fuerte o pensamiento Débil: Julius Evola o Gianni Vattimo


Marcos Ghio - Pensamiento Fuerte o pensamiento Débil: Julius Evola o Gianni Vattimo

Conferencia organizada por el CENTRO EVOLIANO DE AMÉRICA, brindada el 22.11.16 en la ciudad de Buenos Aires Argentina. Expone el Lic. Marcos Ghio. Título: "Pensamiento Fuerte o Pensamiento Débil: Julius Evola o Gianni Vattimo.

lundi, 08 janvier 2018

Jornada Evoliana 2017 - A 100 años de la Revolución Bolchevique


Jornada Evoliana 2017 - A 100 años de la Revolución Bolchevique



'1917, Preludio del Anticristo', a cargo del LIc. Juan Manuel Garayalde.

"Meinvielle y Evola: anticomunismo güelfo y gibelino", a cargo del Lic. Marcos Ghio.

samedi, 09 décembre 2017

La jeunesse, Evola et la montée d’une véritable Droite


La jeunesse, Evola et la montée d’une véritable Droite

par Thierry DUROLLE

En tant que traditionalistes (1), nous croyons en la doctrine des cycles cosmiques (2) et par conséquent nous savons que notre temps actuel correspond au dernier cycle, celui qui est connu sous le nom de Kali-Yuga (3). Ce cycle particulier est le plus sombre des quatre cycles et affecte tous les aspects de la vie en général. Ainsi, les êtres humains, les civilisations et la politique ne peuvent-ils échapper à son pouvoir corrupteur. C’est un fait important à garder à l’esprit.

Cependant, le cycle se termine seulement pour repartir avec le premier, l’Âge d’Or ou Krita-Yuga d’un cycle suivant, les jours sombres laissent place à une nouvelle ère. Toutefois, entre-temps, certains d’entre nous, ceux qui forment la Jeunesse, ressentent le besoin d’une action politique mais nécessitent une formation solide pour faire face aux abominations de nos sociétés postmodernes. La Droite est un concept large après tout, comme c’est le cas pour la gauche. En France, la Droite signifie « Droite économique », même si elle apparaît parfois plus progressiste, parfois plus conservatrice. Dans son échelle de principes, le principe économique est toujours le plus élevé et tous les autres lui sont subordonnés. Voici un exemple frappant d’une étape finale involutive.

La définition de ce qui devrait être considéré comme la vraie Droite est une tâche impérative. Parmi les nombreux sujets qu’il a abordés à travers ses écrits, Julius Evola a consacré de nombreux articles sur cette question. Le philosophe italien, souvent réduit à un « fasciste ésotérique », incarne l’homme de Droite. Ses écrits, mais surtout ses actes, en ont fait un exemple vivant de la droiture que chacun voudrait atteindre. La jeunesse néo-fasciste italienne d’après-guerre n’avait pas tort de chercher toutes ces pierres précieuses dans les livres d’Evola afin de construire sa doctrine.

Handbook.jpgPublié à l’origine en hongrois fin 2012 en tant qu’anthologie des articles d’Evola sur la jeunesse et la Droite, A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth (Un manuel pour la jeunesse de Droite) est maintenant disponible grâce à Arktos en anglais. Nous espérons qu’une version française verra le jour tôt ou tard. En effet, l’influence d’Evola sur la désormais célèbre Nouvelle Droite française et tous ses héritiers (des identitaires aux militants nationalistes-révolutionnaires et traditionalistes radicaux), sans oublier le fondateur du présent site, Georges Feltin-Tracol (4), et certains contributeurs tels Daniel Cologne (5) et votre serviteur lui-même, est tout simplement énorme.

A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth contient dix-sept textes, principalement des articles de presse, mais aussi des extraits de livres tels que L’arc et la massue (6), ainsi que l’intégralité de l’essai intitulé Orientations (7). Il comprend une préface de Gabor Vona, président du parti hongrois Jobbik, et des notes bibliographiques de Robert Horvath. Nous devons également souligner les nombreuses notes de bas de page et la qualité de leurs explications. Le lecteur se retrouve avec un manuel destiné aux militants mais aussi à tous ceux qui désirent découvrir Julius Evola.

Comme le titre le suggère, les deux sujets principaux sont la Droite et la jeunesse. Le premier était un sujet classique développé par l’auteur à travers la totalité de ses écrits. En fait, la Droite suit l’écrivain italien comme son ombre. Julius Evola reste l’éveilleur le plus politique de la Tradition. Il s’est toujours considéré comme un homme de Droite, il a écrit à propos de la Droite et ses critiques et ses positions ont esquissé une doctrine, mieux encore, une vision du monde de Droite. « Cependant, il est également possible de laisser de côté toutes les hypothèses institutionnelles et de parler de la Droite en tant qu’orientation spirituelle et vision du monde. En plus de s’opposer à la démocratie et à tous les mythes “ socialistes ”, appartenir à la Droite signifie défendre les valeurs de la Tradition comme valeurs spirituelles, aristocratiques et guerrières (éventuellement avec des références à une tradition militaire stricte, comme dans le cas du prussianisme). De plus, cela signifie un certain mépris pour l’intellectualisme et pour le fétichisme bourgeois de l’homme cultivé (p. 50). »

Tout au long des différents textes du livre, Julius Evola insiste sur le fait que la vraie Droite est anti-égalitaire, anti-matérialiste, anti-démocratique mais aussi spirituelle et héroïque. En un mot traditionaliste. « En ce sens, le concept de Tradition s’applique à un système dans lequel toutes les activités sont en principe ordonnées d’en haut et ont une direction ascendante (p. 37). » En outre, Julius Evola vise les principaux foyers d’infection qui doivent être combattus selon lui (le marxisme, la psychanalyse, l’existentialisme et le darwinisme) et donne quelques indices sur les domaines culturels sur lesquels la Droite devrait se concentrer, c’est le cas de l’historiographie par exemple.

À propos du second sujet, Robert Harvath fait remarquer que « le sujet de la jeunesse ne faisait pas partie des préoccupations centrales d’Evola; c’est une ligne fine, mais visible, qui parcourt toute son œuvre (p. 150) ». Lorsqu’il écrit sur les jeunes, Julius Evola encourage une « autre jeunesse » ou, au contraire, critique la jeunesse au sens large. Cette dernière appartient à la jeunesse moyenne pour ainsi dire et Evola a surtout concentré ses critiques sur les étudiants et les beatniks comme dans Against the Youth (Contre les jeunes) ou Some Observations on the Student Movement (Quelques remarques sur le mouvement étudiant), tous deux présents dans ce manuel.

Julius Evola a rédigé ses premiers écrits d’après-guerre pour les jeunes militants néo-fascistes italiens. Il n’écrit pas sur ce qui doit être fait mais sur la façon d’être : « Ne pas se laisser aller est ce qui est crucial aujourd’hui. Dans cette société égarée, il faut se payer le luxe d’avoir un caractère. Il faut être du genre, avant même d’être reconnu comme le champion d’une idée politique, à faire preuve d’une certaine conduite de vie, d’une cohérence intérieure et d’un style de droiture et de courage intellectuel dans chaque relation humaine (p. 1). » Par ailleurs, « sur le plan de l’esprit, il existe quelque chose qui peut déjà servir de trace aux forces de résistance et de renouveau : c’est l’esprit légionnaire. C’est l’attitude de ceux qui surent choisir la voie la plus dure, de ceux qui surent combattre tout en étant conscients que la bataille était matériellement perdue, de ceux qui surent convalider les paroles de la vieille saga : “ Fidélité est plus forte que feu ”, et à travers lesquels s’affirma l’idée traditionnelle (p. 7) ». Enfin, « l‘action intérieure doit précéder toutes les autres actions (p. 3) ».

Nous croyons que ces conseils sont d’une importance capitale même si Evola a écrit sur des thèmes strictement plus politiques comme l’idée impériale, le corporatisme, la guerre occulte ou la « démonie de l’économie ». Certaines personnes comme Claudio Mutti ont rapidement fait d’Evola un admirateur de l’islam puisqu’il a montré à ses lecteurs, de manière positive, la mentalité guerrière de cette religion et son concept du grand djihad. Ce qu’il voulait montrer (et surtout apprécier), c’est ce processus ascétique, cette transformation presque alchimique de soi-même pour atteindre quelque chose de plus élevé. Ses intérêts pour la magie, qu’il a explorée en compagnie d’Arturo Reghini (8) dans le groupe Ur, son intérêt pour le tantra vamachara ou l’alpinisme sont des faits qui tendent à prouver notre point de vue.

En ce qui concerne cette collection de textes, nous aurions pu apprécier l’ajout des dernières parties de Chevaucher le tigre (9) qui consistent en un groupe de préceptes pour être et devenir dans cet âge sombre du Kali-Yuga. Aussi, et cela aurait été une addition nécessaire selon nous, quelques textes ou extraits de ses écrits sur la race auraient été une excellente correctif concernant le racialisme.

En conclusion, A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth est certainement un must pour tous les militants politiques et métapolitiques, pour chaque homme de Droite dans sa véritable essence. Nous croyons fermement que les sociétés occidentales ont besoin d’un renouveau de la Droite, pour ne pas dire une révolution. Gabor Vona a souligné un vrai problème dans la vraie Droite de nos jours : « La tragédie de cette situation est que les outils de la gauche sont contagieux. Cela crée une catastrophe politique, qui est extrêmement banale de nos jours: le paysage de la soit-disant Droite est en réalité de plus en plus rempli d’idées gauchistes, et permet aux frontières de la gauche de s’approcher de plus en plus, de la fausse Droite. Bien sûr, cela aboutit à une confusion totale, à la schizophrénie et au chaos des idées (p. 11 de l’avant-propos). »

C’est le plus grand danger auquel la vraie Droite puisse faire face maintenant. Le national-bolchevisme et le maoïsme nazi mis à part (même si leur tiers-mondisme était idéologiquement néfaste), nous identifions clairement une forte « gauchisation » de la Nouvelle Droite française (en particulier de l’une de ses personnalités, Alain de Benoist) et ce que les médias nomment « extrême droite ». La prévalence des questions sociale et économique, les critiques du libéralisme d’un point de vue marxiste et pire, l’abandon de la défense de la race de notre peuple – l’urgence numéro une pour la plupart des pays d’Europe occidentale – et la volonté d’éviter ces sujets sont de véritables signes de dégénérescence. Nous n’avons pas le temps et ne devrions pas prendre la peine d’analyser les causes; le fruit est déjà trop pourri. Le temps de reconstruire une vraie Droite est maintenant venu. Les livres de Julius Evola et A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth sont plus que des lectures nécessaires pour remettre les idées à l’endroit !

Thierry Durolle


1 : Par « traditionaliste », nous entendons quelqu’un qui se réfère au sens du mot expliqué par René Guénon.

2 : La doctrine des cycles cosmiques est souvent comprise comme un concept uniquement hindou, mais elle correspond également aux âges d’homme d’Hésiode.

3 : Il est le même que l’Âge de Fer d’Hésiode ou l’Âge du Loup nordique.

4 : Né en 1970, Georges Feltin-Tracol est rédacteur en chef du site Europe Maxima et auteur de nombreux ouvrages et articles. Militant depuis longtemps pour la Grande Europe, il a toujours revendiqué l’influence de Julius Evola dans sa réflexion.

5 : Né en 1946, Daniel Cologne est journaliste et essayiste. Il a écrit plusieurs livres sur la Tradition et a travaillé pour la revue traditionaliste Totalité.

6 : Julius Evola, L’Arc et la massue, Éditions Trédaniel, 1983, 275 p.

7 : Julius Evola, Orientations, Éditions Pardès, 2011, 90 p.

8 : Né en 1878, Arturo Reghini était un franc-maçon italien et était considéré comme le plus célèbre pythagoricien italien.

9 : Julius Evola, Chevaucher le tigre, Éditions Trédaniel, 2002, 290 p.

• Julius Evola, A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth, en anglais, Éditions Arktos, 2017, 182 p., 21,07 €.

D’abord mis en ligne en anglais sur Euro-Synergies, le 8 novembre 2017.

lundi, 13 novembre 2017

Tout dans la Tradition, rien contre la Tradition, rien en dehors de la Tradition


Tout dans la Tradition, rien contre la Tradition, rien en dehors de la Tradition

par Thierry DUROLLE

« Fascisme » et « fasciste » sont aujourd’hui des termes de novlangue relevant de l’insulte. Ils servent, à l’instar du mot « nazi », à disqualifier toute personne qui tient un discours non conforme. Pour autant, le sens initial de ces mots résonne encore dans la tête d’un bon nombre de personnes, du militant politique jusqu’à l’historien.

Faf-Cologne-196x300.jpgEn effet, les fascismes – non pas uniquement le fascisme italien – en tant que phénomènes politiques, doivent d’être étudiés et leurs résultats longuement médités. En 1977, Georges Gondinet et Daniel Cologne se prononcent sur cette épineuse question avec leur fascicule Pour en finir avec le fascisme. Essai de critique traditionaliste-révolutionnaire (1). L’objectif de ce roboratif essai au titre provocateur consiste tout d’abord à mettre dos à dos les deux « mythologisations » du fascisme : la première positive, émanant des milieux dit d’extrême droite; la seconde provenant des ennemis du fascisme, soit le libéralisme et le marxisme. Les auteurs se posent en « héritiers partiels et lucides ». Leur critique du phénomène fasciste s’inscrit donc dans une troisième voie où dominent l’influence de la Tradition Primordiale et le recul historique.

Les critiques du condominium libéralo-marxiste (les auteurs parlent de « critique externe ») n’ont guère évoluées en quarante ans et ne méritent pas que l’on s’y attarde. La « critique interne », c’est-à-dire celle de la Droite radicale, est quant à elle « surtout l’œuvre de nostalgiques, des gens qui ont vécu et apprécié cette époque, de sentimentaux attachés à l’image qu’ils se font de leur passé (p. 11) ». Maurice Bardèche et sa conception rêvée du fascisme n’est pas de leur goût, car selon eux elle ne « débouche pas sur une critique interne, sur une proposition politique nouvelle, sur un fascisme purifié (p. 12) ». Ceci n’enlève rien à l’une des facettes du phénomène fasciste, soit sa proportion à renouer vers un nouvel âge d’or, dans une tentative de restauration de nature héroïque, en plein âge du loup. « Le fascisme nous apparaît comme l’effort révolutionnaire pour retrouver, en plein cœur de la modernité décadente, un monde où la puissance sociale et la supériorité naturelle soit fondées sur des critères spirituels plutôt que matériels (p. 13). » Rebondissant sur deux critiques professées par les libéraux, celles de l’impérialisme et du racisme, Daniel Cologne et Georges Gondinet, en bons défenseurs de l’idée traditionnelle, affirment que « le monde traditionnel connut l’idée impériale et la race, nullement l’impérialisme et le racisme (p. 13) ».

Néanmoins le phénomène fascisme atteint sa limite malgré la tentative de restauration de type héroïque qu’il prétend incarner. En effet, son vitalisme est avant tout perçu comme une dégradation d’un élément autrefois supérieur : « son défaut fut de considérer l’héroïsme comme l’expression de la “ volonté de puissance ”, l’affirmation brutale de la vie, l’exaltation dionysiaque de l’être subintellectuel, le culte de l’action pour l’action, la libération des forces instinctives délivrées de tout interdit moral ou religieux et de toute préconception de l’esprit (p. 16) ». En clair, et les auteurs reprennent d’ailleurs volontiers le terme de Spengler, l’homme façonné par le fascisme est l’incarnation typique de l’« homme faustien ». L’influence de la philosophie typiquement naturaliste de Nietzsche n’échappe donc pas à la critique. « En prônant le naturalisme nietzschéen, le fascisme a voulu renouer avec la grande tradition de l’Europe. En cela, il se trompait. En effet, pour saisir l’essence de la tradition européenne, il faut avoir recours à la conception de la “ spiritualité primordiale ” (Evola) (p. 17). » Ainsi pour renouer avec un idéal à la fois européenne et traditionnelle, la nécessité de se tourner vers un type ascético-militaire comme ce fut le cas avec l’Ordre du Temple par exemple. À l’époque contemporaine et à l’instar de Julius Evola, Georges Gondinet et Daniel Cologne se tournent vers la Garde de Fer du Roumain Codreanu et la Phalange de l’Espagnol Primo de Rivera plutôt que vers le régime du Duce.

sintesi.jpgLa question du matérialisme biologique, c’est-à-dire de la race, figure parmi les sujets évoqués dans cet essai. En bon évoliens, les auteurs condamnent le racisme biologique national-socialiste et adoptent sans réelle surprise les positions de Julius Evola exprimées dans Synthèse de doctrine de la race (2). « La pureté de la race ainsi comprise résulte de l’équilibre entre les trois niveaux existentiels : l’esprit, l’âme, et le corps. Il n’y a pas de pureté raciale sans une totalité de l’être, un parfait accord entre ses traits somatiques, ses dispositions psychiques et ses tendances spirituelles (p. 24). » Les auteurs en arrivent à la conclusion que la race de l’esprit, qu’ils nomment « générisme » est « la condition sine qua non du dépassement du fascisme, du retour à un traditionalisme véritable, de l’effort vers une révolution authentique (p. 25) ».

Après avoir mentionné la distinction entre totalitarisme et « totalitisme », terme que l’on pourrait remplacer par les concepts de holisme ou d’« organicité », Daniel Cologne et Georges Gondinet s’attardent sur l’aspect socialiste du phénomène fasciste. Bien que « le socialisme est une des concessions du fascisme à la modernité (p. 38) », son principal intérêt réside dans la sublimation du prolétariat et de la bourgeoisie car « il débourgeoise le nationalisme en l’unissant au socialisme et déprolétarise le socialisme en lui adjoignant le nationalisme (p. 31) ». Ce dernier découle d’une vision du monde, il n’est pas une technique ou un moyen pour arriver à une fin; les auteurs citent Moeller van den Bruck pour appuyer leurs propos. « Le socialisme, c’est pour nous : l’enracinement, la hiérarchie, l’organisation (p. 32). » Enfin, d’un point de vue social, les auteurs, sans jamais utiliser le terme, insinuent l’idée de caste. « Dans le monde apollinien, la solidarité primordiale est ressentie au niveau de catégories éthiques supranationales, entre des classes d’hommes dont les critères transcendaient le plan naturaliste ou racial. […] Le paysan français attaché à sa terre est plus lié au paysan allemand ou italien partageant sa mystique du sol qu’à l’ouvrier embourgeoisé et déraciné de la banlieue parisienne (p. 34). »

En guise de conclusion à cet essai, Georges Gondinet et Daniel Cologne font un rappel salutaire quant à l’idée, mais surtout au fait, que « le fascisme n’a de sens que dans le contexte de la culture albo-européenne (p. 37) ». Ils rappellent aussi que le fascisme ne se résume pas simplement à une troisième voie politique; cela consisterait à réduire la portée du phénomène fasciste, chose qui « conduit à de graves erreurs (p. 37) ». Ces propos visent clairement certains au sein de la mouvance nationale-révolutionnaire, adeptes du « tiers-mondisme de droite », et qui encensaient à l’époque les divers mouvements de « libération nationale » franchement hostiles au monde blanc. À ce sujet, Philippe Baillet, ancien collaborateur de la revue Totalité où écrivaient aussi Gondinet et Cologne, a fait le tour de la question dans son livre L’Autre Tiers-mondisme. Des origines à l’islamisme radical (3). Enfin, les auteurs énumèrent les concepts-clé de la pensée traditionaliste-révolutionnaire : la volonté de valeur, l’idée impériale, le « générisme », l’État organique, le « totalisme ». « Tels sont les grands axes de la pensée traditionaliste-révolutionnaire permettant d’en finir avec le fascisme, ses erreurs passées et sa déformation présente (p. 40). »

Bien que cet essai fut écrit en 1977, certains propos n’ont pas vieilli, là où d’autres ne sont peut-être plus ou alors moins d’actualité. Nous pensons bien sûr aux attaques à peine dissimulées à l’encontre de la Nouvelle Droite qui à l’époque, et comparé à aujourd’hui, méritait bien son épithète de Droite. Daniel Cologne a toujours été critique envers le nietzschéisme. Nous ne pouvons pas le lui en vouloir. Remettons toutefois les choses à leur place. Comparé à l’involution de la philosophie et de l’éthique du monde moderne, comparé à la subversion galopante des sociétés humaines, notamment celle en cours au sein de la société occidentale, le recours à la philosophie éthique et vitaliste de Nietzsche est définitivement un pas en avant de nature anagogique, comparable au « cycle héroïque » d’Hésiode. Toutefois, il ne doit pas être une finalité, mais une étape vers l’idéal défendu par Georges Gondinet et Daniel Cologne dans ce cas de figure, et par celui de Julius Evola avant eux. La nature de la philosophie nietzschéenne est naturaliste, dionysiaque, c’est-à-dire qu’elle prend source dans l’immanence, alors que la Tradition ou plus exactement l’Âge d’Or, d’essence apollinienne, prend sa source dans la transcendance ou la « transcendance immanente » chère à Evola. Nieztsche a cependant le mérite de focaliser sa philosophie sur l’européanité (5) là où certains éveilleurs de la Tradition, Frithjof Schuon en tête, négligent totalement les voies « européennes » de la philosphia perennis


Cet opuscule que l’on peut aisément comparer au Fascisme vu de Droite (4) synthétise en partie ce dernier. Cependant, sa nature est différente car la prise de distance toute évolienne du premier cède la place, dans le deuxième, à un volontarisme politique assumé. Court dans le format, direct dans le propos, sa place est naturellement entre les mains de militants. Il est également appréciable que les auteurs ne tombent jamais dans le battage de coulpe, chose qui aurait été surprenante.

« Messagère d’une nouvelle aurore (p. 14) », la Tradition et son incarnation politique, le traditionalisme-révolutionnaire, constitue l’étape d’après dans le perfectionnement d’un mouvement politique d’envergure européen. Le traditionalisme-révolutionnaire est d’autant plus d’actualité dans notre Europe de l’Ouest enlisée dans le laïcisme et le matérialisme. La critique de Daniel Cologne et Georges Gondinet ne plaira sans doute pas aux fascistes orthodoxes, tandis que les militants néo-fascistes, sur lesquels l’influence de Julius Evola est souvent prépondérante, devraient y être plus réceptifs. Certains traditionalistes, ceux qui se tiennent strictement à l’écart de tout engagement politique, ne doivent pas non plus bouder ce fascicule. Pour en finir avec le fascisme. Essai de critique traditionaliste-révolutionnaire mériterait d’être réédité, tout comme Éléments pour un nouveau nationalisme (6), opuscule doctrinal paru dans un format identique dont l’auteur est Daniel Cologne. Nous espérons que des éditeurs à contre-courant entendrons notre appel…

Thierry Durolle


1 : Georges Gondinet et Daniel Cologne, Pour en finir avec le fascisme. Essai de critique traditionaliste-révolutionnaire, Cercle Culture et Liberté, 1977.

2 : Julius Evola, Synthèse de doctrine de la race, Éditions de L’Homme Libre, 2002.

3 : Philippe Baillet, L’autre tiers-mondisme. Des origines à l’islamisme radical, Akribeia, 2016.

4 : Julius Evola, Le Fascisme vu de Droite, Pardès, 1981.

5 : Friedrich Nietzsche, « Regardons-nous en face. Nous sommes des Hyperboréens », dans L’Antéchrist, 1894.

6 : Daniel Cologne, Éléments pour un nouveau nationalisme, Cercle Culture et Liberté, 1977.

02:45 Publié dans Définitions, Traditions | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : tradition, traditionalisme, julius evola | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

jeudi, 09 novembre 2017

The Youth, Evola and the rise of a true Right


The Youth, Evola and the rise of a true Right

by Thierry Durolle

As traditionalists (1), we believe in the doctrine of cosmic cycles (2) and therefore we know that our present time matches with the last cycle, the one which is known by the name of Kali-Yuga (3). This particular cycle is the darkest one of all four cycles and affects every aspects of life in general. Thus human beings, civilizations and politics cannot escape its corrupting power. This is an important fact to keep in mind.

However, the cycle ends only to start up again with the first one, the Golden age or Krita-Yuga, the dark days leaves room for a new era. Yet in the meantime some of us, the youth, feels the urge for political action but need a strong formation to face the abominations of our post-modern societies. Right-wing is a wide concept after all, as it is the same for the Left. In France – we give this example because we know the situation of this country very well – the Right means ‘Economic Right’, even if it appears sometimes more progressive, sometimes more conservative. Within its scale of principals, the economic principle is always the highest and all the others are subordinated to it. Here is a clear example of a final stage of involution.

The definition of what should be considered the real Right is an imperative task. Among the numerous topics he dealt with through his writings, Julius Evola wrote numerous articles about that question. The Italian philosopher, often reduced to an ‘esoteric fascist’, embodies himself the man of the Right. His writings but especially his deeds made him a living example of the uprightness one would try to attain. The neo-fascist youth of post WW2 Italy was not wrong to seek all the gems herein Evola’s books in order to build its doctrine.

Originally published in Hungarian at the end of 2012 as an anthology of Evola’s articles about the youth and the Right, A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth is now available thanks to Arktos in English. We hope that a french version will see the day sooner or later. Indeed, Evola’s influence on the now famous french Nouvelle Droite and all its heirs (from identitarians to national-revolutionary and traditionalist-revolutionary militants), not to mention the founder of this website Georges Feltin-Tracol (4), contributors Daniel Cologne (5) and ourselves, is simply huge.

A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth contains seventeen texts, mostly press articles but also some excerpts from books like The Bow and the Club and the entire essay Orientations. It includes a foreword by Gabor Vona who is the Chairman of Jobbik and bibliographical notes by Robert Horvath. We also must stress the numerous footnotes and the quality of their explanations. The reader ends up with a handbook intended for militants but also for anyone yearning to discover Julius Evola.

As the title suggests, the two main subjects are the Right and the Youth. The first one was a common topic developed by the author along his writings. In fact the Right follows the Italian writer like his shadow. Julius Evola remains the most political awakener of the Tradition. He always considered himself a man of the Right, he wrote about the Right and his critics and stances outlined a doctrine, even better, a view of the world from the Right:

Yet it is also possible to leave all institutional assumptions aside and speak of the Right as a spiritual orientation and worldview. Aside from opposing democracy and all ‘socialists’ myths, belonging to the Right means upholding the values of Tradition as spiritual, aristocratic, and warrior values (possibly with references to a strict military tradition, as in the case of Prussianism, for instance). Moreover, it means harboring a certain contempt for intellectualism and for the bourgeois fetishism of the ‘cultured man’ [...]’ (p.50.).  


Throughout the different texts herein the book, Julius Evola stresses how the real Right is: anti-egalitarian, anti-materialistic, anti-democratic but spiritual and heroic. In one word traditionalist: ‘In this sense, the concept of Tradition applies to a system in which ‘all activities are in principle ordered from above and have an upward direction’ (p.37.). In addition, Julius Evola aims at the main sources of infection which must be fought according to him (Marxism, Psychoanalysis, existentialism and Darwinism) and give some clues on the cultural domains that the Right should focus on, one of them being the historiography.

About the second subject Robert Harvath points out ‘that the subject of youth was not among Evola’s central concerns; it’s a thin, but visible, line that runs throughout his entire oeuvre’ (p.150.). When writing about the Youth, Julius Evola either encourages an autre jeunesse or, on the contrary, criticizes it. The latter belongs to the average youth so to speak and Evola focused especially his critics on students and beatniks like in Against the Youth or Some Observations on the Student Movement, both featuring in this handbook.

Julius Evola wrote his first post WW2 writings for the young Italian neo-fascist militants. He does not write about what has to be done but how to be:

‘Not letting oneself go is what is crucial today. In this society gone astray, one must be capable of the luxury of having a character. One ought to be such that, even before being recognized as the champion of a political idea, one will display a certain conduct of life, an inner coherence, and a style consisting of uprightness and intellectual courage in every human relationship’(p.1).

As spirit there exists something that can serve as an outline for the forces of resistance: it is the legionary spirit. It is the attitude of one who knows how to choose the hardest life, to fight even when he knows that the battle is substantially lost, and to confirm the words of the ancient saga: ‘loyalty is stronger than fire’. Through him the traditional idea is affirmed’(p.7).

Inner action must precede all other actions’(p.3).

We believe that these advice are of first-hand importance even if Evola wrote about more strictly political themes like the imperial idea, corporatism, occult war or the ‘demonic possession of the economy’. Some people like Claudio Mutti hastily made Evola an admirer of islam since he positively showed to his readers the warlike mentality of this particular religion and its concept of greater jihad. What he wanted to show (and mostly liked) is this ascetic process, this almost alchemical transformation of oneself to reach something higher. His interests for magic, which he explored in company of Arturo Reghini (6) in the Ur-group, his interest for vamachara tantra or mountaineering are facts that tend to prove our point.

Concerning this collection of texts, we could have appreciated if the last parts of Evola’s Ride the Tiger (6) which consist in a bunch of precepts to be and become in this dark age of Kali-Yuga could have been added. Also, and this would have been a necessary addition according to us, some texts or excerpts from his writings about race, which would have been an excellent correcting concerning racialism.

To conclude, A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth is definitely a must have for any political and metapolitical militants, for every men of the Right in its true essence. We strongly believe that Western societies need a renewal of the Right, not to say a revolution. Gabor Vona pointed out a real problem in nowadays ‘real right’:

The tragedy of this situation is that the tools of the Left are infectious. This creates a political catastrophe, which is extremely common nowadays: the landscape of the so-called Right is in reality becoming more and more filled with Leftist ideas, and allows the Left’s borders to approach closer and closer, displaying and mainstreaming the pseudo- or fake Rightism. Of course, this results in total confusion, schizophrenia, and a chaos of ideas’ (p.11. Of the foreword).


This is the greater danger the real Right faces now. National-Bolshevism and nazi-maoism left aside (even if their Third-Worldism was ideologically harmful), we clearly identify a strong ‘leftisation’ of the French Nouvelle Droite (especially of one of its prominent figure Alain de Benoist) and what the mass media names Far-Right. The prevalence of the social and economic question, the critics of liberalism from a marxist perspective and worse, the abandonment of the defense of our people’s race – the number one emergency for most of western European countries – and the will to even avoid such words and topics are true signs of degeneracy. We do not have the time and should not bother analyzing the causes; the fruit is too far rotten. The time to rebuild a true Right is now. Julius Evola’s books and A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth are more than necessary readings in order to set les idées à l’endroit!

Thierry Durolle

états-unis,altright,nouvelle droite,nouvelle droite américaine,american new right,philosophie,tradition,traditionalisme,julius evolaFootnotes:

(1) By ‘traditionalist’ we mean someone who refers to the meaning of the word explained by René Guénon.

(2) The doctrine of cosmic cycles is often understood as Hindu concept, yet it corresponds to Hesiod’s ages of Man as well.

(3) It is the same than Hesiod’s age of iron or Nordic age of the wolf.

(4) Born in 1970, Georges Feltin-Tracol is the editor-in-chief of the Europe Maxima website as well as the author of numerous books and articles. Being a long time militant for the Greater Europe, he always claimed Julius Evola’s influence on his work.

(5) Born in 1946, Daniel Cologne is a journalist and essayist. He wrote several books about Tradition and worked with the traditionalist magazine Totalité.

(6) Born in 1878, Arturo Reghini was an Italian free-mason and was considered as the most famous Italian Pythagorean.

(7) Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul, Inner Traditions, 2003, 256 pages.

dimanche, 14 mai 2017

L'alchimie spirituelle de Julius Evola et la tradition hermétique


L'alchimie spirituelle de Julius Evola et la tradition hermétique

Conférence de Jean Vaquié : L'alchimie spirituelle de Julius Évola et la tradition hermétique.

mercredi, 15 mars 2017

Arte e Filosofia in Evola, perché il barone non è un’iconcina da sezione


Arte e Filosofia in Evola, perché il barone non è un’iconcina da sezione

da Giovanni Sessa
Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it
Presentiamo un estratto dalla Prefazione di Giovanni Sessa alla nuova edizione del libro di Gian Franco Lami, filosofo politico dell’Università “Sapienza” di Roma, scomparso improvvisamente nel 2011, Arte e filosofia in Julius Evola, da pochi giorni nelle librerie per Fondazione Evola-Pagine editore, i libri del Borghese (euro 18,00). Nel 1980 fu il primo testo esaustivo dedicato al pensatore tradizionalista. Centrato prevalentemente sulla disamina del momento artistico e di quello teoretico di Evola, giunge a lambire la fase tradizionale di Rivolta contro il mondo moderno, mettendo in luce come la proposta evoliana fosse centrale nel dibattito intellettuale del Novecento europeo.                   

quaderno_fondazione_evola-207x300.jpgEvola, afferma Lami: “imposta…il problema filosofico in chiave individuale, o meglio, ‘esistenziale’, e risolve il metodo filosofico nella filosofia, e quest’ultima in una sorta di fenomenologia dell’individuo” . Da tale asserzione si evincono la potenza e l’originalità, nel panorama filosofico d’allora, non solo del momento speculativo evoliano, ma del suo percorso esistenziale. Infatti, l’attraversamento che egli compie dell’attualismo gentiliano, ritenuto vertice insuperato del pensiero europeo, prende le mosse, e qui Lami coglie pienamente nel segno, da Michelstaedter, dalla sua Persuasione. Questa, nell’esegesi lamiana, si configura quale: “…piacevolissima sensazione, quel piacere morale che si persegue nell’atto della liberazione, dell’auto-redenzione dal macchinamento sociale” .

Il giovane filosofo de La persuasione e la rettorica conduce Evola a comprendere essenzialmente che il significato della vita alberga in noi, nella forza della coscienza e nel “…senso personalissimo che ciascuno di noi riesce a dare alla propria vita” . A conferma di quanto sostenuto da Lami, ricordiamo che Evola nel saggio La potenza come valore metafisico, nel discutere le tesi gentiliane, in particolare in merito alla determinazione del molteplice, affidò all’Io empirico, alla sua fatticità di Einzige, di Unico, l’onore e l’onere, nella propria attività cosmicizzante, di “far essere” il mondo .

Al contrario, l’Atto puro del filosofo di Castelvetrano, con il rinviare all’universale, al trascendentale, introduceva nella prospettiva immanentistica di partenza, il Valore metafisico, il Dio trascendente. Per Evola e Michelstaedter, quindi, “platonici senza platonismo” per usare un’espressione coniata da Lami, sono convinti, contro ogni idealismo meramente gnoseologico, così come in contrapposizione ad ogni realismo ritornante, che l’assoluto, ciò che non ammette mediazioni, non possa essere ricercato che nel concreto, nella presenza dirà Andrea Emo, che con Evola condivise posizioni ultrattualiste.

Ma come poté il filosofo romano, se il quadro di riferimento teoretico che andò sviluppando tra il 1917 e il 1924 nelle opere speculative, era quello dell’immanenza pura e nuda, preservare il suo sistema e l’individuo assoluto dall’esito nichilista e dal rischio soggettivista e solipsista, tipicamente moderni? Come riuscì, allo stesso tempo, a superare il limite “mistico” di Michelstaedter, e il suo“dualismo”, retaggio della tradizione di provenienza del filosofo goriziano, quella ebraica, e evidente testimonianza dell’accettazione della logica eleatica e diairetica? Lo hanno spiegato con estrema chiarezza due esegeti del pensiero filosofico di Evola quali Giovanni Damiano e Massimo Donà: Evola non corse il rischio nichilista, perché il suo pensiero scoprì la libertà assoluta, fu anzi essenzialmente una filosofia della libertà . La libertà è realmente tale a condizione che non si esaurisca nella sua accezione di mero svincolo, libertà-da, di negazione fine a se stessa. Essa ha implicita in sé anche la posizione inversa, quella dell’affermazione. Essa “…propriamente non è nulla,…è “al di là” (dove “al di là” va inteso non come separazione ma, all’opposto, come termine di relazione) di ogni determinazione…sfugge ad ogni tentativo di entificarla” .  Non è riducibile alla “cosalità” preda della morsa nichilista, vi si sottrae.

E’ prius rispetto ad ogni antitesi, fondamento infondato che in quanto assoluto, ha in sé la possibilità del limite, della necessità. In questo senso, sotto il profilo esistenziale, per Evola è sempre possibile che la rettorica possa tornare a darsi dopo la conquista della persuasione e viceversa. Evola al riguardo è chiarissimo: “…libertà significa possibilità e la possibilità indeterminata non ha nulla da cui poter essere contraddetta”. Donà sostiene, in tema, che richiamarsi al Geist: “…nella sua accezione specificatamente idealista significa…vedersi ineludibilmente sospeso ad una “possibilità” che sarebbe sempre potuta non essere in quanto tale” . Sostiene, inoltre, il filosofo veneziano, che in conseguenza di tale acquisizione teorica e pratica in Evola il “già stato” non costituisce un’esperienza data, passata. Tale posizione è talmente radicale da porsi oltre le barriere divisive della logica identitaria, consentendo ad Evola di incontrare il pensiero e la prassi “magica”, nella stagione immediatamente successiva a quella speculativa.

Anche Lami, fin dalla fine degli anni Settanta, mentre l’ermeneutica evoliana più diffusa costringeva il pensatore negli angusti limiti della sola proposta politica, aveva capito tutto ciò: la filosofia dell’esistenza di Evola (si badi!, da non confondersi con nessuna specie di esistenzialismo), si configurava quale modello di filosofia della liberazione, scandita nelle tappe fenomenologiche della Spontaneità, della Personalità, della Dominazione. Lami interpreta la prima come stadio del “vivere animale” dell’uomo. Ciò che il mondo greco chiama anthropos, l’uomo-animale, è perfettamente chiarificato da tale momento della fenomenologia, ed è la “figura” iniziale da cui muovere per giungere all’individuo assoluto. Per questa ragione l’uomo evoliano si fa in un percorso esistenziale sempre fallibile, ma comunque anche effettivamente possibile, non è dato, è una conquista graduale e remissibile.

Con la seconda epoca viene attuata la coscienza riflessa, in funzione della quale ci si sente nel mondo ma distinti da esso. Infine, nella terza epoca, la volontà diviene la base su cui costruire i rapporti tra io ed altro da sé. L’individuo si afferma. Trova vita l’aner, il portatore dell’andreia, “fortezza” esistenziale, che in cammino ascendente realizza in sé, nella concreta fatticità, la libertà. Evola, a dire di Lami, presenta sotto forma di filosofia, le sua esperienza di liberazione, la sua reale Via alla libertà. Si tratta di un processo “purificatorio”, come negli antichi Misteri, in cui progressivamente l’uomo abolisce e riduce la dipendenza dall’esterno e acquisisce, in un percorso mai definitivamente concluso, la capacità di fare centro a sé in ogni circostanza.

Su tale Via ci si lascia alle spalle il torpore vitale che ci avviluppa e ci si impone al reale nei termini dell’appercezione interiore. In tale contesto teorico, Lami rileva l’importanza per la formazione della filosofia di Evola della filosofia della libertà di Rudolf Steiner, ma ciò che stupisce davvero della sua esegesi, almeno nella nostra prospettiva, sta nell’aver colto la prossimità di Evola al filosofo Antonio Banfi. In particolare, in relazione al problema dell’ordine trascendentale, nel quale il pensatore milanese individuò il luogo della connessione tra conoscenza empirica e unità di significato, il quid che qualifica in profondità la vita.

[…] Ciò spiega la presa di distanza di Lami, nell’Appendice di questo libro, uscito da oltre trentacinque anni, da quanti tendevano allora, ma sono troppi ancora oggi, a voler “ridurre” l’evolismo entro gli angusti limiti di “immaginetta” da sezione, da gruppuscolo cospirativo o, a seconda dei casi, ad icona da setta para-esoterica . Evola, così come la sua visione della storia e l’idea di Tradizione, andavano liberati dalle letture deterministiche: questo il compito che si assunse Lami scrivendo le pagine che seguono. In esse, pur non disconoscendo il ruolo svolto da Guénon nel preservare il patrimonio simbolico europeo a beneficio dei venturi, di fatto rileva come l’Età Ultima, il Tramonto spengleriano tematizzato da tanta filosofia della crisi, per Evola dovesse essere vissuta, non come momento cataclismatico dell’origine, ma quale possibilità di un Altro Inizio.


Di Giovanni Sessa

samedi, 18 février 2017

Gianfranco De Turris: “Se Evola (critico degli Usa) viene apprezzato anche alla Casa Bianca”


Gianfranco De Turris: “Se Evola (critico degli Usa) viene apprezzato anche alla Casa Bianca”

da Michele De Feudis
Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it 

Gianfranco de Turris, segretario della Fondazione Evola. Il filosofo di “Cavalcare la tigre” è negli ultimi giorni tornato d’attualità per una citazione di un consigliere del neopresidente Usa Donald Trump, Steve Bannon. In che contesto Bannon ha citato Evola?

“In realtà non è proprio così, anche se il “New York Times” ha lasciato credere questo… Il quotidiano ha tirato fuori solo ora una cosa del 2014, quando Trump non era nessuno, solo per metterlo in difficoltà con quello che è ora il suo consigliere principale. Ma la coincidenza ancora più interessante è che la dichiarazione di Bannon è uscita il 10 febbraio, guarda caso esattamente dieci giorni dopo la sua nomina nel National Security Council! Se due indizi fanno una prova… L’autore dell’articolo sul NYT, Jason Horowitz, che mi ha intervistato per mettere tre righe su mezz’ora di conversazione, è il vaticanista del giornale ed è stato volutamente generico nel riferimento a tre anni fa. Ma in Rete non si perde nulla e si è trovata la fonte primaria della notizia. Bannon in realtà non parla direttamente di Evola ma lo cita en passant, rispondendo ad una domanda, dunque uno spunto occasionale, non programmato. E citando invece esplicitamente Dugin, consigliere, si dice, di Putin. Tutto qui. Una cosa ridicola e strumentale, che comunque ha permesso a “Repubblica” un titolo epocale in prima pagina (!) da incorniciare: “Evola e il Fascismo ispirano Bannon la mente di Trump”. Il titolo dell’articolo è nel classico stile-Repubblica, allarmistico e pomposo: “Il cuore nero della destra americana”. E cioè: Sun Tsu, Spengler, D’Annunzio, Evola e Mussolini! Ah, anche Dart Fener, il cattivo di “Guerre stellari”… Insomma, una “trama nera”, che va dalla Rivoluzione Conservatrice a Star Wars…. Risun teneatis! Incredibile ma vero. A questo giunge la stampa italiana, senza senso del ridicolo. Ma questo ci fa gioco.
Insomma, all’inizio c’è una bufala strumentalizzata ad uso interno statunitense, anche se è perfettamente vero, come mi avevamo detto tempo fa amici americani, che Stephen Bannon è un conoscitore del tradizionalismo e legge e studia non solo Evola, ma anche Guénon, Dugin e de Benoist, che un vero tradizionalista certo non è, ma che comunque collabora anche al sito Breitbart News, cuore della cosiddetta Alt-Right statunitense”.

Ma che cosa interessa a Bannon del tradizionalismo?

“Se ci si deve basare sulla conferenza in Vaticano dove i riferimenti sono generici, si deve pensare che Bannon in realtà riprende piuttosto alcuni concetti della Rivoluzione Conservatrice, condivisi spesso parzialmente e con riserve (vedi il caso del principio di autodeterminazione dei popoli) dal pensiero tradizionale. È ad ogni modo la critica alla modernità che interessa a Bannon del pensiero tradizionale, le accuse al mondialismo, alla globalizzazione mercantilista, ecc. Una forma di anticapitalismo di Destra, insomma, assai diffuso anche al di fuori del pensiero tradizionale. Con risvolti ultrapopulisti che però riprendono più la tradizione americana che quella europea e che di sicuro Evola non avrebbe mai sottoscritto considerando il tipo di critiche che rivolgeva a fascismo e nazismo su questo punto”.


Evola negli Usa: è studiato dalle élite americane o nelle accademie oltreoceano?

“Macché! La cosa paradossale è proprio questa. Nonostante che tutti i suoi libri maggiori siano tradotti in inglese soprattutto dalla americana Inner Traditions, che io sappia non viene non dico letto dalle élites, ma neppure studiato nelle università, a parte alcuni singoli docenti che se ne sono occupati per aspetti particolari come Richard Drake per l’aspetto politico, Joscelyn Godwin per l’esoterismo o Jeffrey Schnapps per l’arte. Forse questo inaspettato parlarne sui grandi giornali americani potrebbe accendere un vero e serio interesse per la sua opera multiforme, al di là delle sciocchezze che sono state scritte…”.

Il barone dedicò saggi e studi agli Stati Uniti e all’americanismo. Con che orientamento?

“Evola ha scritto sugli Stati Uniti sin dagli anni Trenta con il famoso saggio “Americanismo e bolscevismo” che poi divenne la conclusione di “Rivolta contro il mondo moderno” già nella prima edizione del 1934. Sono le due facce della stessa medaglia, cioè il materialismo, che alla fine stritoleranno l’Europa, in quanto particolare tipo di civiltà. Caduta l’URSS però sono rimasti solo gli USA. Dopo quasi trent’anni adesso a capo degli USA c’è un singolare personaggio, del tutto imprevisto e imprevedibile, gli sviluppi della cui politica non è possibile immaginare, e le cui posizioni potrebbero essere influenzate da Bannon.
Certo è paradossale, una beffa se non una nemesi della Storia che un pensatore che ha visto nell’americanismo un nemico più pericoloso del comunismo in quanto subdolo, e che contro gli USA ne ha scritte di tutti i colori (basti leggere gli articoli riunti da Alberto Lombardo in “Civiltà americana”, quaderno della Fondazione Evola) abbia improvvisamente un accesso al pensiero di un consigliere di un presidente americano! Chi lo avrebbe mai potuto immaginare? La Storia non è già stata scritta e non va in un’unica direzione come pensano i progressisti oggi in grandi ambasce. Non so pensare a come andrà a finire, sempre che si consenta a Trump di arrivare a fine mandato (i casi Kennedy e Nixon insegnano). Mah!”.

L’attualità del pensiero evoliano: resta concretamente spendibile per comprendere gli scenari internazionali?

“Il pensiero di Evola non è un pensiero politico ma metapolitico, non è pratico ma si preoccupa di formare le menti e lo spirito per affrontare la politica-politicante, voleva creare “una destra spirituale” come scrisse ne “Gli uomini e le rovine” nella edizione del 1967. E ciò vale sia nella politica interna che in quella internazionale. Sono i grandi principi, i valori base che contano, il riferimento al sacro, una forma mentis antimoderna e antimaterialistica. E oggi che è tutto impregnato di materialismo, laicismo, dove tutto è secolarizzato soprattutto in USA, è difficile pensare secondo le sue indicazioni. Ma non impossibile. La classe dirigente è stata allevata in base a ben altri criteri. I riferimenti, che hanno fatto alcuni giornali italiani al “predominio della razza bianca” sono ridicoli, se non demenziali”.

Tiriamo le somme: molto rumore per nulla?

“Penso di sì. Non dimentichiamoci che, da quando è stato eletto Trump la grande stampa progressista internazionale è coalizzata contro di lui: il NYT, e qui da noi i grandi quotidiani, dedicano letteralmente un servizio al giorno per screditare lui e i suoi collaboratori. Nel nostro caso è una strumentalizzazione anti Trump di un fatto lontano e tangenziale, indiretto, ripescato nella memoria di un giornalista. Tanto per poter dire, fornendo un’immagine forzata e inventata delle idee di Evola, che gli Stati Uniti potrebbero diventare una nazione autoritaria, se non dittatoriale e fascista, e magari giustificare un golpe bianco contro Trump o il suo assassinio da parte di qualche esaltato che uccide ill tiranno in nome della democrazia. Io credo proprio che Evola se la ridirebbe di gusto… Anche se, considerando le imprevedibilità della Storia recente, non si sa proprio quel che potrebbe accadere”.



Di Michele De Feudis

jeudi, 22 décembre 2016

Donoso Cortes, Carl Schmitt, Julius Evola

Donoso Cortes, Carl Schmitt, Julius Evola

DC-CSn40.jpgDe nos jours, la « discussion » est devenue une marchandise, le produit vendable des nouvelles par câble et des revues d’opinion; il n’y a plus même le prétexte d’une « recherche de la vérité ».

Je ne crois pas que la monographie de Carl Schmitt sur Donoso Cortés, mentionnée par Julius Evola, ait été traduite. Cependant, le dernier chapitre de la Théologie politique de Schmitt est intitulé Sur la philosophie contrerévolutionnaire de l’État (de Maistre, Bonald, Donoso Cortes), de sorte qu’il peut servir de résumé à la compréhension par Schmitt de Donoso.

Mais d’abord, il faut signaler une anomalie intéressante. Le Schmitt catholique, ainsi que les trois contre-révolutionnaires catholiques, n’ont eut absolument aucun impact sur l’église contemporaine. Leurs idées sur la Tradition, l’autorité et l’opposition au monde libéral moderne ont été rejetées par l’église modernisante Vatican II. Alors, pourquoi l’Evola anti-chrétien était-il si enchantée par la figure de Donoso Cortés? Comme l’indique Evola dans sa revue de la monographie de Schmitt sur Thomas Hobbes, ce qui compte, c’est la « manifestation d’un principe et d’un ordre supérieur » et la mise en place d’un « type d’organisation véritablement spirituelle et hiérarchique traditionnelle ». Puisqu’il n’y a plus de soutien institutionnel à de telles idées, il incombe aux rares de les comprendre et de les développer. 

Comme nous l’avons vu, Evola rejette la revendication de Hobbes du contrat social comme la base de l’état du Leviathan, car cela pourrait servir à lui fournir un vernis de légitimité. C’est plutôt la dévolution de l’Etat traditionnel, résultat de la perte du sens d’une vérité transcendante, tout en conservant son autorité, qui donne notre situation. Un tel Etat, laissé à ses propres moyens sous l’influence de « courants plus profonds, toujours capables de s’infiltrer là où elles ne trouvent pas la voie barrée par la présence de principes authentiques et d’une vérité ferme et durable », va continuer de permettre la « dissolution individualiste de l’Etat ». Alors, qu’est-ce que Donoso nous raconte de ce choc libéral et de son contraire?

L’idéal libéral est la « libre enquête », le « marché des idées », la « conversation éternelle ». Schmitt écrit:

Les philosophes politiques catholiques comme de Maistre, Bonald et Donoso […] auraient considéré la conversation éternelle comme le produit d’un fantasme horriblement comique, car ce qui caractérisait leur philosophie politique contre-révolutionnaire, c’était la reconnaissance que leur époque nécessitait des décisions.

Car la Tradition de Bonald offrait la seule possibilité d’acquérir ce que l’homme était capable d’accepter métaphysiquement, parce que l’intellect individuel était considéré comme trop faible et misérable pour pouvoir reconnaître la vérité par elle-même.

Les antithèses et les distinctions que Bonald a tant aimé contiennent en vérité des disjonctions morales … De telles disjonctions morales représentent des contrastes entre le bien et le mal, Dieu et le diable; entre eux existe un « les deux/ou » dans le sens d’une lutte de vie ou de mort qui ne reconnaît pas une synthèse et un « tiers supérieur ».

Nous voyons que les contre-révolutionnaires rejettent l’idéal libéral que l’opinion de chaque homme compte. « L’erreur n’a pas de droits », et peu d’hommes sont capables de surmonter l’erreur intellectuelle. Donoso était encore plus emphatique. Selon Schmitt, Donoso Cortés avait un

mépris pour l’homme ne connaissait pas de limites: la raison aveugle de l’homme, sa faiblesse et la ridicule vitalité de ses désirs charnels lui paraissaient si pitoyables que toutes les paroles de tout langage humain ne suffisent pas à exprimer toute la bassesse de cette créature. […] La stupidité des masses devait être aussi évidente pour lui que la vanité idiote de leurs chefs.

En somme, Donoso décrit les hommes comme étant à l’étape qu’Evola appelait la première[1] qui est définie « par des forces, des idées et des objets en dehors de lui-même. Manquant de volonté, l’homme de la première étape ne peut rien faire sans être dirigé par des forces extérieures ». De même, comme Evola, Donoso méprise la société bourgeoise. Schmitt écrit:

Selon Donoso Cortés, il était caractéristique du libéralisme bourgeois de ne pas décider dans cette bataille mais plutôt d’entamer une discussion. Il définit directement la bourgeoisie comme une « classe de discussion ». Cette définition contient la classe caractéristique de vouloir éluder la décision. Une classe qui déplace toute l’activité politique sur le plan de la conversation dans la presse et au parlement n’est pas fait pour le conflit social.

La futilité du débat

Voici le cœur de la question. La classe bourgeoise, bien que nominalement au pouvoir, n’a aucune compréhension, ni même croyance en aucun principe d’ordre transcendant. Par conséquent, il n’y a plus de convictions. Sans aucune compréhension des vrais principes, il n’y a pas d’argument contre les forces destructrices du désordre. Quand le contraire de la vérité est mis à égalité avec la vérité, il ne peut y avoir de résolution. Le débat se poursuivra sans résolution, comme quelque spectacle des Highlanders, mais sans les éléments héroïques. Au lieu d’un « les deux/ou», il y a maintenant un « et/ou ». Les masses elles-mêmes n’ont aucun moyen de résoudre le problème, et donc se considèrent libres de choisir une alternative basée sur rien d’autre que leurs caprices. Ainsi, le choix du désordre est tout aussi valable que le choix de l’ordre.

Si un enfant touche un poêle chaud, il reçoit immédiatement des commentaires négatifs et apprend à ne jamais le faire à nouveau. Dans le cours de sa vie, un homme fera beaucoup d’erreurs. Souvent, les conséquences ne sont pas clairement connues jusqu’à des années plus tard, lorsque les enchevêtrements qu’il a créés deviennent difficiles à échapper. Sur le plan sociétal, les effets négatifs ne seront pas remarqués pendant de nombreuses années, dépassant souvent même la durée de la vie d’un homme. C’est pourquoi ils persistent, sous le regard perplexe de ceux qui sont encore capables de voir les vraies causes et conséquences des événements.


L’Etat libéral et bourgeois n’a pas la volonté de prendre une décision. Schmitt explique:

Donoso Cortés a considéré la discussion éternelle comme une méthode de contournement de la responsabilité et d’attribution à la liberté d’expression et de la presse une importance excessive qui en dernière analyse permet à la décision d’être évitée. Tout comme le libéralisme discute et négocie tous les détails politiques, il veut aussi dissoudre la vérité métaphysique dans une discussion. L’essence du libéralisme est la négociation, une demi-mesure prudente, dans l’espoir que le conflit définitif, la bataille sanglante décisive, puisse se transformer en débat parlementaire et permettre que la décision soit suspendue pour toujours dans une discussion éternelle.

DC-buste.jpgNous voyons, cependant, que la négociation ne bouge que dans une seule direction. Par exemple, supposons que j’offre 50 $ pour un produit et que le vendeur demande 100 $. Nous négocions pour 75 $. Le vendeur connaît alors ma limite. Donc la prochaine fois que nous négocions, nous commençons à 75 $ et il exige 125 $. Si, par indécision, ou si je manque de volonté pour tenir ferme, vous pouvez voir que le prix va continuer à augmenter. Ainsi, les conflits sociaux continuent d’être résolus dans un seul sens, malgré les intentions des conservateurs de maintenir le statu quo, et, en tout cas, continue à « évoluer » dans la même direction.

Le contraire de la discussion est la décision. Dans une société traditionnelle, la décision finale était prise par le grand prêtre ou le roi. À ce moment-là, la décision était sensiblement définitive et la discussion prenait fin. Dans la sphère religieuse, l’autorité spirituelle est infaillible; dans le domaine politique, le Roi établit la loi. Dans cette optique, le conflit ne peut pas être négocié et doit être traité de façon plus primitive. Cela a toujours été reconnu. Par exemple, Dante a reconnu le duel comme l’arbitrage ultime. Joseph de Maistre louait le bourreau comme la force cachée derrière l’ordre. C’est pourquoi les révolutionnaires s’opposent toujours à la peine de mort, du moins jusqu’à ce qu’ils acquièrent eux-mêmes le pouvoir.

Pour Donoso, qui vivait à une époque où les rois ne détenaient plus le pouvoir que dans un sens nominal, la solution était un dictateur ou un « homme de destin ». C’est la conclusion logique. C’est un pas en arrière, dans la perspective de la contre-révolution, car c’est encore l’autorité sans vérité ni légitimité. Tout en ne rejetant pas cette notion, pour Evola, ce n’est

que le stade où l’autorité suffit et la vérité est superflue; où les mythes, et non les vrais principes, sont le meilleur instrument pour saisir et organiser les forces collectives; dans lequel le miracle d’une personnalité exceptionnelle, d’un « homme de destin » saturé du « droit divin », et non pas un pur « droit divin », fonde et légitime la souveraineté et le commandement et confère un caractère transcendant à l’idée de l’État.

En fin de compte, cette étape doit elle-même être surpassée: nous entrerons dans une nouvelle phase dans laquelle le Léviathan, pour ainsi dire, deviendra le corps formé pour rendre possible l’incarnation et la manifestation d’un principe et d’un ordre supérieur: avec cela, l’aspect collectiviste et irrationnel du principe du totalitarisme sera surpassé et mettra en œuvre de nouveau un type d’organisation vraiment spirituelle et traditionnelle hiérarchique.

Traduction de l’anglais, même titre, de Cologero Salvo sur Gornahoor (http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4499) daté du 19 juillet 2012. Ce texte est pertinent en ce qu’il traite des auteurs principaux d’une frange catholique de la contre-révolution/révolution conservatrice. Ces auteurs seront repris individuellement sur ce site dans le future proche.

[1] À ce sujet : http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=639

vendredi, 09 décembre 2016

Marcos Ghio - Pensamiento Fuerte o pensamiento Débil: Julius Evola o Gianni Vattimo


Marcos Ghio - Pensamiento Fuerte o pensamiento Débil: Julius Evola o Gianni Vattimo

Conferencia organizada por el CENTRO EVOLIANO DE AMÉRICA, brindada el 22.11.16 en la ciudad de Buenos Aires Argentina. Expone el Lic. Marcos Ghio. Título: "Pensamiento Fuerte o Pensamiento Débil: Julius Evola o Gianni Vattimo.

dimanche, 16 octobre 2016

Julius Evola: una mística y lúcida rebelión contra la modernidad


Julius Evola: una mística y lúcida rebelión contra la modernidad

Especial TLV1 N° 14

Julius Evola: una mística y lúcida rebelión contra la modernidad

Desde la "Librería Europa", en Barcelona, España, Juan Manuel Soaje Pinto entrevista al prof. Eduard Alcántara, historiador, investigador y escritor; autor de "El hombre de la Tradición", y "Reflexiones contra la Modernidad", prologados por Enric Ravello y Santiago de Andrés, acerca de la vida y el pensamiento de Julius Evola, un filósofo, pintor e ideólogo italiano, desconocido todavía hoy para el gran público, y cuya personalidad y obra son imprescindibles para todo aquel que busca entender el cómo y el por qué del mundo moderno y sus consecuencias.

vendredi, 30 septembre 2016

Ripartire da EVOLA!


mardi, 20 septembre 2016

Rightist Critique of Racial Materialism


Rightist Critique of Racial Materialism

Ex: http://www.katehon.com

While France and England gave materialistic, anti-traditional expressions to the concept of “the people” that was taking shape since the French Revolution, German Idealism was a return to a spiritual, metaphysical direction. The German Revolution moved in a volkish direction, where the volk was seen as the basis of the state, and the notion of a volk-soul that guided the formation and development of nations became a predominant theme that came into conflict with the French bourgeois liberal-democratic ideals derived from Jacobinism. Fichte had laid the foundations of a German nationalism in 1807-1808 with his Addresses to the German Nation. Although like possibly all revolutionaries or radicals of the time, beginning under the impress of the French Revolution, by the time he had delivered his addresses to the German nation, he had already rejected Jacobinism. Johann Heder had previously sought to establish the concept of the volk-soul, and of each nation being guided by a spirit. This was a metaphysical conception of race, or more accurately volk, that preceded the biological arguments of the Frenchman Count Arthur de Gobineau. Herder stated that the volk is the only class, and includes both King and peasant, and that “the people” are not the same as the rabble that are championed by Jacobinism and later Marxism. 

Houston Stewart Chamberlain - Occult History Third Reich - Peter Crawford.jpgFrench and English racism was introduced to Germany by the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain who had a seminal influence on Hitlerism. English Darwinism, a manifestation of the materialistic Zeitgeist that dominated England, was brought to Germany by Ernst Haeckel; although Blumenbach had already begun to classify race according to cranial measurements during the 18th century. Nonetheless, biological racism reflects the English Zeitgeist of materialism. It provided primary materialistic doctrines to dethrone Tradition. Its application to economics also provided a scientific justification for the “class struggle” of both the capitalistic and socialistic varieties. Hitlerism was an attempt to synthesis the English eugenics of Galton and the evolution of Darwin with the metaphysis of German Idealism. Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola attempted to counter the later influence of Hitlerian racism on Italian Fascism by developing a “metaphysical racism,” and the concept of the “race of the spirit,” which has its parallels in Spengler, whose approach to race is in the Traditionalist mode of the German Idealists.

Because the Right, the custodian of Tradition within the epoch of decay, has been infected by the spirit of materialism, there is often a focus on secondary symptoms of culture disease, such as in particular immigration, rather than primary symptoms such as usury and plutocracy. “Race” becomes a matter of skull measuring, rather than spirit, élan and character. Hence the character of a civilisation and of a people is discerned via the types of bone and skull found amidst the ruins. History then becomes a matter of counting and measuring and statistics. How feeble such attempts remain is demonstrated by the years of controversy surrounding the racial identity of Kennewick Man in North America, having first thought to have been a Caucasian, and now concluded to have been of Ainu/Polynesian descent. The Traditionalist does not discount “race”. Rather it plays a central role. How “race” is defined is another matter. 

Trotsky called “racism” “Zoological materialism”. As an “economic materialist”, that is, a Marxist, he did not explain why his own version of materialism is a superior mode of thinking and acting than the other. They arose, along with Free Trade capitalism, out of the same Zeitgeist that dominated England at the time, and all three refer to a naturalistic life as struggle. The Traditionalist rejects all forms of materialism. The Traditionalist does not see history as unfolding according to material, economic forces, or racial-biological determinants. The Traditionalist sees history as the unfolding of metaphysical forces manifesting within the terrestrial. Spengler, although not a Perennial Traditionalist, intuited history over a broad expanse as a metaphysical unfolding. Although a man of the “Right”, he rejected the biological interpretation of history as much as the economic. So did Evola.

The best known exponents of racial determinism were of course German National Socialists, the reductionist doctrine being expressed by Hitler: 

“…This is how civilisations and empires break up and make room for new creations. Blood mixture, and the lowering of the racial level which accompanies it, are the one and only cause why old civilisations disappear…” 

The USA provided a large share of racial theorists of the early 20th century, whose conception of the rise and fall of civilisation was based on racial zoology, and in particular on the superiority of the Nordic not only above non-white races, but above all sub-races of the white, such as the Dinaric, Mediterranean and Alpine. Senator Theodore G. Bilbo of Mississippi wrote a book championing the cause of segregation, and more so, the “back-to-Africa” movement, stating that miscegenation with the Negro will result in the fall of white civilisation. He briefly examined some major civilisations. Bilbo wrote that Egyptian civilisation was mongrelised over centuries, “until a mulatto inherited the throne of the Pharaohs in the Twenty-fifth dynasty. This mongrel prince, Taharka, ruled over a Negroid people whose religion had fallen from an ethical test for the life after death to a form of animal worship”. This should be “sufficient warning to white America!” Because Sen. Bilbo had started from an assumption, his history was flawed. As will be shown below, it was Taharka and the Nubian dynasty that renewed Egypt’s decaying culture, which had degenerated under the white Libyan dynasties.  Sen. Bilbo proceeds with similar brief examinations of Carthage, Greece, and Rome. 

julius%20evola%20sintesi%20e%20dottrina%20della%20razza%20heopli.jpegJulius Evola, while repudiating the zoological primacy of “racism” as another form of materialism and therefore anti-Traditional, suggested that a “spiritual racism” is necessary to oppose the forces seeking to turn man into an amorphous mass; as interchangeable economic units without roots; what is now called “globalisation”. 

Evola gives the Traditionalist viewpoint when stating that there “have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure, as is especially clear in certain groups that have suffered slow, inexorable extinction despite remaining as racially isolated as if they were islands”. He gives Sweden and The Netherlands as recent examples, pointing out that although the race has remained unchanged, there is little of the “heroic disposition” those cultures possessed just several centuries previously. He refers to other great cultures as having remained in a state as if like mummies, inwardly dead, awaiting a push “to knock them down”. These are what Spengler called Fellaheen, spiritually exhausted and historically passé. Evola gives Peru as an example of how readily a static culture succumbed to Spain. Hence, such examples, even as vigorous cultures such as that of the Dutch and Scandinavian, once wide-roaming and dynamic, have declined to nonentities despite the maintenance of racial homogeneity. 

The following considers examples that are often cited as civilisations that decayed and died as the result of miscegenation.


A case study for testing the miscegenation theory of cultural decay is that of the Hellenic. The ancient Hellenic civilisation is typically ascribed by racial theorists as being the creation of a Nordic culture-bearing stratum. The same has been said of the Latin, Egyptian, and others. Typically, this theory is illustrated by depicting sculptures of ancient Hellenes of “Nordic” appearance. Such depictions upon which to form a theory are unreliable: the ancient Hellenes were predominantly a mixture of Dinaric-Alpine-Mediterranean. The skeletal remains of Greeks show that from earliest times to the present there has been remarkable uniformity, according to studies by Sergi, Ripley, and Buxton, who regarded the Greeks as an Alpine-Mediterranean mix from a “comparatively early date.” American physical anthropologist Carlton S. Coon stated that the Greeks remain an Alpine/Mediterranean mix, with a weak Nordic element, being “remarkably similar” to their ancient ancestors.

American anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel, in the most complete study of Greek skeletal remains starting from the Neolithic era to the present, found that Greeks have always bene marked by a sustained racial continuity. Angel cited American anthropologist Buxton who had studied Greek skeletal material and measured modern Greeks, especially in Cyprus, concluding that the modern Greeks “possess physical characteristics not differing essentially from those of the former [ancient Greeks]”. The most extensive study of modern Greeks was conducted by anthropologist Aris N. Poulianos, concluding that Greeks are and have always been Mediterranean-Dinaric, with a strong Alpine presence. Angel states that “Poulianos is correct in pointing out ... that there is complete continuity genetically from ancient to modern times”. Nikolaos Xirotiris did not find any significant alteration of the Greek race from prehistory, through classical and medieval, to modern times. Anthropologist Roland Dixon studied the funeral masks of Spartans and identified them as of the Alpine sub-race. Although race theorists often stated that Hellenic civilisation was founded and maintained by invading Dorian “Nordics”, Angel states that the northern invasions were always of “Dinaroid-Alpine” type. A recent statistical comparison of ancient and modern Greek skulls found “a remarkable similarity in craniofacial morphology between modern and ancient Greeks.”

If miscegenation and the elimination of an assumed Nordic (Dorian) culture-bearing stratum cannot account for the decay of Hellenic civilisation, what can? Contemporary historians point out the origins. The Roman historian Livy observed: 

“The Macedonians who settled in Alexandria in Egypt, or in Seleucia, or in Babylonia, or in any of their other colonies scattered over the world, have degenerated into Syrians, Parthians, or Egyptians. Whatever is planted in a foreign land, by a gradual change in its nature, degenerates into that by which it is nurtured”.

tarn-2.jpgHere Livy is observing that occupiers among foreign peoples “go native”, as one might say. The occupiers are pulled downward, rather than elevating their subjects upward, not through genetic contact but through moral and cultural corruption. The Syrians, Parthians and Egyptians, had already become historically and culturally passé, or Fellaheen, as Spengler puts it. The Macedonian Greeks in those colonies succumbed to the force of etiolation. Alexander even encouraged this in an effort to meld all subjects into one Greek mass, which resulted not from a Hellenic civilisation passed along by multitudinous peoples, but in a chaotic mass from which Greece did not recover, despite the Greeks staying racially intact. Unlike the Jews in particular, the Greeks, Romans and other conquerors did not have the strength of Tradition to maintain themselves among alien cultures. Dr. W. W. Tarn stated of this process:

“Greece was ready to adopt the gods of the foreigner, but the foreigner rarely reciprocated; Greek Doura (the Greek temple in Mesopotamia) freely admitted the gods of Babylon, but no Greek god entered Babylonian Uruk. Foreign gods might take Greek names; they took little else. They (the Babylonian gods) were the stronger, and the conquest of Asia (by the Greeks) was bound to fail as soon as the East had gauged its own strength and Greek weakness.”

Spengler pointed out to Western Civilisation and the current epoch that one of the primary symptoms of culture decay is that of depopulation. It is a sign literally that a Civilisation has become too lazy to look beyond the immediate. There is no longer any sense of duty to the past or the future, but only to a hedonistic present. Polybius (b. ca. 200 B.C.) observed this phenomenon of Hellenic Civilisation like Spengler did of ours, writing: 

tarn-1.jpg“In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us. If, then, any one had advised our sending to ask the gods in regard to this, what we were to do or say in order to become more numerous and better fill our cities,—would he not have seemed a futile person, when the cause was manifest and the cure in our own hands? For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left heirless: and, like swarms of bees, little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited and weak. On this subject there is no need to ask the gods how we are to be relieved from such a curse: for any one in the world will tell you that it is by the men themselves if possible changing their objects of ambition; or, if that cannot be done, by passing laws for the preservation of infants”.

Do Polybius’ thoughts sound like some unheeded doom-sayer speaking to us now about our modern world? If the reader can see the analogous features between Western Civilisation, and that of Greece and Rome then the organic course of Civilisations is being understood, and by looking at Greece and Rome we might see where we are heading.


Another often cited example of the fall of civilisation through miscegenation is that of Rome. However, despite the presence of slaves and traders of sundry races, like the Greeks, today’s Italians are substantially the same as they were in Roman times. Arab influence did not occur until Medieval times, centuries after the “fall of Rome”, with Arab rule extending over Sicily only during 1212-1226 A.D. The genetic male influence on Sicilians is estimated at only 6%. The predominant genetic influence is ancient Greek. The African have a less than  1% frequency  throughout Italy other than in , , and where there are frequencies of 2% to  3% . Sub-Saharan, that is, Negroid, mtDNA have been found at very low frequencies in Italy, albeit marginally higher than elsewhere in Europe, but date from 10,000 years ago. This study states: “….mitochondrial DNA studies show that Italy does not differ too much from other European populations”. Although there are small regional variations, “The mtDNA haplogroup make-up of Italy as observed in our samples fits well with expectations in a typical European population”. 

Hence, an infusion of Negroid or Asian genes during the epoch of Rome’s decline and fall is lacking, and the reasons for that fall cannot be assigned to miscegenation. What slight frequency there is of non-Caucasian genetic markers entered Rome long before or long after the fall of Roman Civilisation. There was no “contamination of Roman blood”, but of Roman spirit and élan.  

declinerome.jpgAlien immigration introduces cultural elements that dislocate the social and ethical basis of a Civilisation and aggravate an existing pathological condition. The English scholar Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, writing on the fall of Rome, commented that the Roman conquerors were subjected “to cultural inundation and grassroots influence”. Because Rome extended throughout the world, like the present Late Western, the economic opportunities accorded by Rome drew in all the elements of the subject peoples, “groups of mixed origin and alien ways of life”. “Even more significant was what the Romans learnt while on duty overseas, for men so influenced were of the highest rank”. Parkinson quotes Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referring to the Roman colony of Antioch: 

“…Fashion was the only law, pleasure the only pursuit, and the splendour of dress and furniture was the only distinction of the citizens of Antioch. The arts of luxury were honoured, the serious and manly virtues were the subject of ridicule, and the contempt for female modesty and reverent age announced the universal corruption of the capitals of the East…” 

Roman historian Livy wrote of the opulence of Asia being brought back to Rome by the soldiery:

“…it was through the army serving in Asia that the beginnings of foreign luxury were introduced into the City. These men brought into Rome for the first time, bronze couches, costly coverlets, tapestry, and other fabrics, and - what was at that time considered gorgeous furniture - pedestal tables and silver salvers. Banquets were made more attractive by the presence of girls who played on the harp and sang and danced, and by other forms of amusement, and the banquets themselves began to be prepared with greater care and expense. The cook whom the ancients regarded and treated as the lowest menial was rising in value, and what had been a servile office came to be looked upon as a fine art. Still what met the eye in those days was hardly the germ of the luxury that was coming”.

The moral decay of Rome resulted in the displacement of Roman stock, not by miscegenation, but by the falling birth-rate of the Romans. Such population decline is itself a major symptom of culture decay. The problem that it signifies is that a people has so little consciousness left as to its own purpose as a culture that its individuals do not have any responsibility beyond their own egos. Professor Tenney Frank, foremost scholar on the economic history of Rome, also considered the results of population decline, from the top of the social hierarchy downward: 

“The race went under. The legislation of Augustus and his successors, while aiming at preserving the native stock, was of the myopic kind so usual in social lawmaking, and failing to reckon with the real nature of the problem involved. It utterly missed the mark. By combining epigraphical and literary references, a fairly full history of the noble families can be procured, and this reveals a startling inability of such families to perpetuate themselves. We know, for instance, in Caesar’s day of forty-five patricians, only one of whom is represented by posterity when Hadrian came to power. The Aemilsi, Fabii, Claudii. Manlii, Valerii, and all the rest, with the exception of Comelii, have disappeared. Augustus and Claudius raised twenty-five families to the patricate, and all but six disappear before Nerva’s reign. Of the families of nearly four hundred senators recorded in 65 A. D. under Nero, all trace of a half is lost by Nerva’s day, a generation later. And the records are so full that these statistics may be assumed to represent with a fair degree of accuracy the disappearance of the male stock of the families in question. Of course members of the aristocracy were the chief sufferers from the tyranny of the first century, but this havoc was not all wrought by delatores and assassins. The voluntary choice of childlessness accounts largely for the unparalleled condition. This is as far as the records help in this problem, which, despite the silences is probably the most important phase of the whole question of the change of race. Be the causes what they may, the rapid decrease of the old aristocracy and the native stock was clearly concomitant with a twofold increase from below; by a more normal birth-rate of the poor, and the constant manumission of slaves 

While allusions to “race” by Professor Frank are enough for “zoological materialists” to spin a whole theory about Rome’s decline and fall around miscegenation of the “white race” with blacks and Orientals, we now know from the genetics that despite the invasions over centuries, the Italians, like the Greeks, have retained their original racial composition to the present. What Frank is describing, by an examination of the records that show a disappearance of the leading patrician families, is that Rome was in a spiritual crisis, as all civilisations are when they regard child-bearing as a burden. Traditionalists such as Evola pointed out that the “secret of degeneration” of a civilisation is that it rots from the top downward, and as Spengler pointed out, one of the primary signs of that rot is childlessness. That there were Roman statesmen with the wisdom to understand what was happening is indicated by Augustus’ efforts to raise the birth-rate, but to no avail. Of this symptom of moral decay, Professor Frank wrote: 

“In the first place there was a marked decline in the birthrate among the aristocratic families. … As society grew more pleasure-loving, as convention raised artificially the standard of living, the voluntary choice of celibacy and childlessness became a common feature among the upper classes. …”


Urbanisation, the magnetic pull of the megalopolis, the depopulation of the land and the proletarianism of the former peasant stock as in the case of the West’s Industrial Revolution, impacted in major ways on the fall of Rome. A. M. Duff wrote of the impact of rural depopulation and urbanisation:

“But what of the lower-class Romans of the old stock? They were practically untouched by revolution and tyranny, and the growth of luxury cannot have affected them to the same extent as it did the nobility. Yet even here the native stock declined. The decay of agriculture. … drove numbers of farmers into the towns, where, unwilling to engage in trade, they sank into unemployment and poverty, and where, in their endeavours to maintain a high standard of living, they were not able to support the cost of rearing children. Many of these free-born Latins were so poor that they often complained that the foreign slaves were much better off than they, and so they were. At the same time many were tempted to emigrate to the colonies across the sea which Julius Caesar and Augustus founded. Many went away to Romanize the provinces, while society was becoming Orientalized at home. Because slave labour had taken over almost all jobs, the free born could not compete with them. They had to sell their small farms or businesses and move to the cities. Here they were placed on the doles because of unemployment. They were, at first, encouraged to emigrate to the more prosperous areas of the empire to Gaul, North Africa and Spain. Hundreds of thousands left Italy and settled in the newly-acquired lands. Such a vast number left Italy leaving it to the Orientals that finally restrictions had to be passed to prevent the complete depopulation of the Latin stock, but as we have seen, the laws were never effectively put into force. The migrations increased and Italy was being left to another race. The free-born Italian, anxious for land to till and live upon, displayed the keenest colonization activity.” 

The foreign cultures and religions that had come to Rome from across the empire changed the temperament of the Romans masses who were uprooted and migrating to the cities; where as in the nature of the cites, as Spengler showed,  they became a cosmopolitan mass. Frank writes of this: 

“This Orientalization of Rome’s populace has a more important bearing than is usually accorded it upon the larger question of why the spirit and acts of imperial Rome are totally different from those of the republic. There was a complete change in the temperament! There is today a healthy activity in the study of the economic factors that contributed to Rome’s decline. But what lay behind and constantly reacted upon all such causes of Rome’s disintegration was, after all, to a considerable extent, the fact that the people who had built Rome had given way to a different race. The lack of energy and enterprise, the failure of foresight and common sense, the weakening of moral and political stamina, all were concomitant with the gradual diminution of the stock which, during the earlier days, had displayed these qualities. It would be wholly unfair to pass judgment upon the native qualities of the Orientals without a further study, or to accept the self-complacent slurs of the Romans, who, ignoring certain imaginative and artistic qualities, chose only to see in them unprincipled and servile egoists. We may even admit that had these new races had time to amalgamate and attain a political consciousness a more brilliant and versatile civilization might have come to birth.” 

Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire.jpgWhat is notable is not that the Romans miscegenated with Orientals, but that the uprooted, amorphous masses of the cities no longer adhered to the Traditions on which Roman civilisation was founded. The same process can be seen today at work in New York, London and Paris. Duff wrote of this, and we might consider the parallels with our own time: 

“Instead of the hardy and patriotic Roman with his proud indifference to pecuniary gain, we find too often under the Empire an idle pleasure-loving cosmopolitan whose patriotism goes no further than applying for the dole and swelling the crowds in the amphitheatre”. 

The Roman Traditional ethos of severity, austerity and disdain for softness that Emperor Julian attempted to reassert was greeted by “fashionable society” with “disgust”. Parkinson remarks that “there is just such a tendency in the London of today, as there was still earlier in Boston and New York”. These “world cities” no longer reflect a cultural nexus but an economic nexus, and hence one’s position is not based on how one or one’s family unfolds the Traditional ethos, but on whether or how one accumulates wealth. 


social_pyramid_f02.jpgIndia is the most commonly cited example of a civilisation that decayed through miscegenation, the invading Aryans imparting a High Culture on India and then forever falling into decay because of miscegenation with the low caste “blacks”, or Dravidians. However, Genetic research indicates that the higher castes have retained to the present a predominately Caucasian genetic inheritance.

“As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-European distance. … Among the upper castes the genetic distance between Brahmins and Europeans (0.10) is smaller than that between either the Kshatriya and Europeans (0.12) or the Vysya and Europeans (0.16). Assuming that contemporary Europeans reflect West Eurasian affinities, these data indicate that the amount of West Eurasian admixture with Indian populations may have been proportionate to caste rank.

“…As expected if the lower castes are more similar to Asians than to Europeans, and the upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, the frequencies of M and M3 haplotypes are inversely proportional to caste rank.

“…In contrast to the mtDNA distances, the Y-chromosome STR data do not demonstrate a closer affinity to Asians for each caste group. Upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, middle castes are equidistant from the two groups, and lower castes are most similar to Asians. The genetic distance between caste populations and Africans is progressively larger moving from lower to middle to upper caste groups. 

“…Results suggest that Indian Y chromosomes, particularly upper caste Y chromosomes, are more similar to European than to Asian Y chromosomes.

“…Nevertheless, each separate upper caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians.”

Citing further studies, “…admixture with African or proto-Australoid populations” is “occasional”. 

The chaos that afflicted India seems to have been of religio-cultural type rather than racial. Despite the superficiality of dusky hues, the Indian ruling castes have retained their Caucasian identity to the present. The genetic contribution of Australoids and Africans was minor. 


Like India, Egypt is often cited as an example of a civilisation that was destroyed primarily by miscegenation, with Negroids. However, despite the myriad of invasions and population shifts, today’s Egyptians are still more closely related genetically to Eurasia than Africa. Migrations between Egypt, Nubia and Sudan have not been extensive enough to “homogenise the mtDNA gene pools of the Nile River Valley populations”, although Egyptians and Nubians are more closely related than Egyptians and southern Sudanese. However, significant differences remain. Even now, today’s Egyptians have primary genetic affinities with Asia, and North and Northeast Africa. The least affinity is to the populations of Sub-Sahara.  The Haplotype  M1, with a high frequency among Egyptians,  hitherto thought to be of Sub-Saharan origin,  is of Eurasian origin.  

Miscegenation with Nubian “slaves” and mercenaries seems unlikely to have caused Egypt’s decay. While a Nubian or “black” pharaoh is alluded to by racial-zoologists as a sign of Egyptian decay, the Nubian civilisation had an intimate connection with the Egyptian and was itself impressive and of early origins. 

Nubian civilisation, with palaces, temples and pyramids, flourished as far back as 7000 B.C. 223 pyramids, twice the number of Egypt, have been found along the Nile of the Nubian culture-region. The Nubian civilisation was of notably long duration surviving until the Muslim conquest of 1500 A.D. The Egyptians have viewed the Nubians either as a “conquered race or a superior enemy”. Hence, Egyptian depictions of shackled black slaves, give a widely inaccurate impression of the Nubian.  Nubians became the pharaohs of Egypt’s 25th dynasty, providing stability where previously there had been ruin caused by civil wars between warlords, ca. 700 B.C. The Nubians were the custodians of Egyptian faith and culture at a time when Egypt was decaying. They regarded the restoration of the faith of Amun as their duty. It was the Nubian dynasties (760-656 B.C.), especially the rulership of Taharqa, which revived and purified Egyptian culture and religion. It was under the “white” rule of the Libyan pharaohs of the 21st dynasty (1069-1043 B. c.) that Egypt began a sharp decline. Ptolemaic (Greek) rule (332-30 B.C.) under Ptolemy IV (222 to 205 B.C.) brought to the rich and sumptuous pharaohs’ court “lax morals and vicious lifestyle” ending in “decadence and anarchy”. Byzantine rule (395 to 640 A.D.) through Christianisation wrought destruction on the Egyptian heritage, which was succeeded by Islamic rule. Of the long vicissitudes of Egypt’s rise and fall, it was the Nubian dynasty that had restored Egyptian cultural integrity. References to Nubians on the throne of the pharaohs tell no more of the causes of Egypt’s decay than if historians several millennia hence sought to ascribe the causes of the USA’s  culture retardation to Obama’s presidency as a “black”. 


We see in Egypt as in Rome, the Moorish civilisation, India and others, the causes of culture decay and fall as being something other than miscegenation. The contemporary Westerner should look for answers beyond this if only because he can see for himself that the West’s decay has no relationship to miscegenation. The number of Americans describing themselves as “mixed race” was just under 9 million in 2010. Of the 3,988,076 live births in the USA in 2014  368,213 were non-white.  The USA did not become the global centre of culture-pestilence because of its mixed race population. What is more significant than the percentages of miscegenation, are the percentages of population decline caused by such factors as the limitation of children, and the rates of abortion. Twenty-one percent of all pregnancies in the USA are aborted. Such depopulation statics are an indication of culture pathology. 

gallery-1431027249-122315523.jpgOf Egypt’s chaos contemporary sages observed, as they did of Rome and India, a disintegration of authority, traditional religion, and the founding ethos and mythos around which a healthy culture revolves. Egypt was often subjected to invasions and to natural disasters. These served as catalysts for culture degeneration. The papyrus called The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, state that after invasions and what seems to have been a class war, Egypt fell apart, there was family strife, the noble families were dispossessed by the lowest castes, authority was disrespected and overthrown, lawlessness and plunder were the norm, and the nobility was attacked: “A man looks upon his son as an enemy. A man smites his brother (the son of his mother)”. Craftsmanship has become degraded: “No craftsmen work, the enemies of the land have spoilt its crafts”. There is rebellion against the Uraeus or Re. “A few lawless men have ventured to despoil the land of the kingship”. It appears that the foundations of Traditional society, god, monarch, family and land, have been caste asunder. Further, “Asiatics” have seized the land from the ancestral occupiers, and have so insinuated themselves into the Egyptian culture that one can no longer tell who is Egyptian and who is alien: “There are no Egyptians anywhere”. “Women are lacking and no children are conceived”. Evidently there is a population crisis; that perennial symptom of decay. The political and administrative structure has collapsed, with “no officers in their place”. The laws are trampled on and cast aside. “Serfs become lords of serfs”.  The writings of the scribes are destroyed. 

What is being described is not a sudden upheaval, although the allusion to natural disasters and Asiatic invasion would imply this. The breakdown of regal authority, civil authority, depopulation, laws, family bonds, religious faith, agriculture and the social structure, imply an epoch of decline into chaos. The social structure has been inversed, as though a communistic revolution had occurred. “He who possessed no property is now a man of wealth. The prince praises him. The poor of the land have become rich, and the possessor of the land has become one who has nothing. Female slaves speak as they like to their mistresses. Orders become irksome. Those who could not build a boat now possesses ships. “The possessors of robes are now in rags”. “The children of princes are cast out in the street”. 

With this inversion of hierarchy has come irreligion and the degradation of religion. The ignorant now perform their own rites to the Gods. Wrong offerings are made to the Gods.  “Right is cast aside. Wrong is inside the council-chamber. The plans of the gods are violated, their ordinances are neglected… Reverence, an end is put to it”.

Ipuwer’s admonition was not only to rid Egypt of its enemies but to return to the Traditional ethos. This meant the reinstitution of proper religious rites, and the purification of the temples. “A fighter comes forth,” Ipuwer prophesises, to “destroy the wrongs”. “Is he sleeping? Behold, his might is not seen”. The Egyptians await an avatar, the personification of the Sun God Re (which Tradition states was the first of the Pharaohs) an Arthur who sleeps but will awaken, a redeemer that is a universal symbol from the Hindu Kalki, to Jesus in the vision of John of Patmos, the Katehon of Orthodox Russia, and many others across time and place. 

Nefertiti2-Re_158267t.jpgIpuwer avers to Egypt having gone through such epochs, alluding to his saying nothing other than what others have said before his time.

The Pharaoh is castigated for allowing Egypt to fall into chaos, with his authority being undermined, and without taking corrective actions. The Pharaoh as God-king, in terms of Tradition, had not maintained his authority as the nexus between the earthly kingdom and the Divine. The Pharaoh had caused “confusion throughout the land”. Certainty of the social hierarchy, crowned by the God-king, is the basis of Traditional societies. It seems that Egypt had entered into an epoch of what a Westerner could today identify in our time as that of scepticism and secularism. Chaos follows with the undermining of Cosmos.

Nefer-rohu warned Pharaoh of similar chaos. Likewise there would be “Asiatic” invasions, natural disasters, Re withdrawing his light, and again the inversion of hierarchy: 

“The weak of arm is now the possessor of an arm. Men salute respectfully him whom formerly saluted. I show thee the undermost on top, turned about in proportion to the turning about of my belly. It is the paupers who eat the offering bread, while the servants jubilate. The Heliopolitan Nome, the birthplace of every god, will no longer be on earth”.

It is notable, again, that Nefer-rohu identifies the chaos with the breaking of the nexus with the divine, and the social order that has become “the undermost on top”. Also of interest is that Nefer-rohu refers to a redeemer, who has a Nubian mother, uniting Egypt and driving out the Asiatics, and the Libyans (the whitest of races of the region) and defeating the rebellious.  Chaos resulted not from bio-genetic-race-factors but from a falling away of the regal and religious authority. If there is a race-factor it is in regard to Nubians being the custodians of Egyptian culture in periods of Egyptian decay, analogous to the revitalising “barbarians” who wept over the decaying Roman Empire.


Islam had its Golden Age and rich civilisation, centred in Morocco, and extending into Spain.  It is in ruins like civilisations centuries prior.  The cultures that flourished in Morocco, both Islamic and pre-Islamic, were Berber. The Islamic civilisation they established with the founding of the Idrisid dynasty in 788 A. D. was ended by the invasion of the Fatimids from Tunisia ca. 900 A.D. Chaos ensued. Although there was a revival of High Culture during the 11th and 14th centuries, dynasties fell in the face of tribalism.  The 16th century saw a revival initiated by al-Ghalin, several decades of wars of succession after his death in 1603, and continuing decline under Saadi dynastic rule during 1627 to 1659. 

stanlane.jpgCaucasoid mtDNA sequences are at frequencies of 96% in Moroccan Berbers, 82% in Algerian Berbers and 78% in non-Berber Moroccans. The study of Esteban et al found that Moroccan Northern and Southern Berbers have only 3% to 1% Sub-Saharan mtDNA. Although difficult to define, since “Berber” is a Roman, not an indigenous term, the estimate for present day Morocco is 35% to 45% Berber, with the rest being Berber-Arab mixture. The primary point is that the Moroccan civilisation had ruling classes, whether pre-Islamic or Islamic, that remained predominantly Berber-Caucasian for most of its history, whether during its epochs of glory or of decline. Miscegenation does not account for the fall of the Moorish Civilisation. 

The High Culture of Moorish Spain (Andalusia) was brought to ruin and decay not by miscegenation between “superior” Spaniards” and “inferior” Moors but by the overthrow of the Moorish ruling caste. Friedrich Nietzsche had observed this culture denegation with the fall of Moorish Spain (Andalusia). Stanley Lane-Poole wrote of the history of decay:

“The land, deprived of the skilful irrigation of the Moors, grew impoverished and neglected; the richest and most fertile valleys languished and were deserted; most of the populous cities which had filled every district of Andalusia fell into ruinous decay; and beggars, friars, and bandits took the place of scholars, merchants, and knights. So low fell Spain when she had driven away the Moors. Such is the melancholy contrast offered by her history”.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a well-travelled sage, grappled with the same problems confronting Islamic Civilisation as those Spengler confronted in regard to The West. A celebrated scholar, political adviser, and jurist, Ibn Khaldun’s domain of influence extended over the whole Islamic world. His major theoretical work is Muqaddimah (1377), intended as a preface to his universal history, Kitabal-Ibar, where he sought to establish basic principles of history by which historians could understand events.  His theory is cyclic and morphological, based on “conditions within nations and races [which] change with the change of periods and the passage of time”. Like Evolahe was pessimistic as to what can be achieved by political action in the cycle of decline, writing that the “past resembles the future more than one drop of water another”.

Ibn Khaldun stated that history can be understood as a recurrence of similar patterns motivated by the drives of acquisition, group co-operation, and regal authority in the creation of a civilisation, followed by a cycle of decay. These primary drives become distorted and lead to the corrupting factors of luxury and domination, irresponsibility of authority and decline.

Like Spengler, in regard to the peasantry, Ibn Khaldun traces the beginning of culture to group or familial loyalty starting with the simple life of the rural - and desert – environments. The isolation and familial bonds lead to self-reliance, loyalty and leadership on the basis of mutual respect. Life is struggle, not luxury. According to Ibn Khaldun, when rulership becomes centralised and divorced from such kinship, free reign is given to luxury and ease.  Political alliances are bought and intrigued rather than being based on the initial bonds and loyalties. Corruption pervades as the requirements of luxury increase. The decadence starts from the top, among the ruling class, and extends downward until the founding ethos of the culture is discarded, or exists in name only.

timbre-citation-ibn-khaldoun_les-arabes.pngIbn Khaldun begins from the organic character of the noble family in describing the analogous nature of cultural rise and fall, caused by a falling away of the original creative ethos with each successive generation:

“The builder of the family’s glory knows what it cost him to do the work, and he keeps the qualities that created his glory and made it last. The son who comes after him had personal contact with his father and thus learned those things from him. However, he is inferior to him in this respect, inasmuch as a person who learns things through study is inferior to a person who knows them from practical application. The third generation must be content with imitation and, in particular, with reliance upon tradition. This member is inferior to him of the second generation, inasmuch as a person who relies upon tradition is inferior to a person who exercises judgment.

“The fourth generation, then, is inferior to the preceding ones in every respect. Its member has lost the qualities that preserved the edifice of its glory. He despises those qualities. He imagines that the edifice was not built through application and effort. He thinks that it was something due to his people from the very beginning by virtue of the mere fact of their descent, and not something that resulted from group effort and individual qualities. For he sees the great respect in which he is held by the people, but he does not know how that respect originated and what the reason for it was. He imagines it is due to his descent and nothing else. He keeps away from those in whose group feeling he shares, thinking that he is better than they”.

For Ibn Khaldun’s “generation” we might say with Spengler “cultural epoch”. Ibn Khaldun addresses the causes of this cultural etiolation, leading to the corrupting impact of materialism. Again, his analysis is remarkably similar to that of Spengler and the decay of the Classical civilisations:  

“When a tribe has achieved a certain measure of superiority with the help of its group feeling, it gains control over a corresponding amount of wealth and comes to share prosperity and abundance with those who have been in possession of these things. It shares in them to the degree of its power and usefulness to the ruling dynasty. If the ruling dynasty is so strong that no-one thinks of depriving it of its power or of sharing with it, the tribe in question submits to its rule and is satisfied with whatever share in the dynasty’s wealth and tax revenue it is permitted to enjoy. ... Members of the tribe are merely concerned with prosperity, gain and a life of abundance. (They are satisfied) to lead an easy, restful life in the shadow of the ruling dynasty, and to adopt royal habits in building and dress, a matter they stress and in which they take more and more pride, the more luxuries and plenty they acquire, as well as all the other things that go with luxury and plenty.

“As a result the toughness of desert life is lost. Group feeling and courage weaken. Members of the tribe revel in the well-being that God has given them. Their children and offspring grow up too proud to look after themselves or to attend to their own needs. They have disdain also for all the other things that are necessary in connection with group feeling.... Their group feeling and courage decrease in the next generations. Eventually group feeling is altogether destroyed. ... It will be swallowed up by other nations.

Ibn Khaldun refers to the “tribe” and “group feeling” where Spengler refers to nations, peoples, and races. The dominant culture becomes corrupted through its own success and its culture become static; its inward strength diminishes in proportion to its outward glamour. Hence, the Golden Age of Islam is over, as are those of Rome and Athens. New York, Paris, and London are in the analogous cultural epochs to those of Fez, Rome and Athens. The “world city” becomes the focus of a world civilisation that ends as cosmopolitan and far removed from its founding roots. Our present “world-cities’” – in particular, New York and The City of London - are the control centres of world politics, economics, and mass-culture by the fact of their also being the centres of banking. These world-cities are the prototypes for a world civilisation that continues to be called “Western”, under the leadership of the USA, a rotting centre like Fez and Rome.

The Muslim determination of what is “progress” and what is “decline” has a spiritual foundation:

“The progressiveness or backwardness of society at any given point of time is determinable in relative terms. It can be compared to other contemporary societies [like the Spenglerian method] or to its own state in the past. … for Muslim society although economic progress is not frowned upon, it is placed lower on the order of priorities as compared to other factors; e.g. the acquisition of knowledge or the provision of justice. There is also a tradition (Hadis) of the Holy Prophet that lists the symptoms of society that is in a pathological state of decline. These outward symptoms point to an underlying malaise in the society but can also provide a useful starting point for corrective actions for stopping or reversing the onset of decline”.  The high and low points of Muslim civilisation can be identified as those of a “Golden Age” or of an “Abyss”.

Comparable to the warnings of other sages, in an epoch of decline again there is an inversion of hierarchy, or more specifically here, of character, the Hadith stating that those in such a society would be corrupted, while others might resist within themselves:

“There will be soon a period of turmoil in which the one who sits will be better than one who stands and the one who stands will be better than one who walks and the one who walks will be better than one who runs. He who would watch them will be drawn by them. So he who finds a refuge or shelter against it should make it as his resort”.

Hebrew “Race”

A Traditionalist “race”, conscious of its nexus with the Divine as the basis of culture, endures regardless of contact with foreigners because of its inward strength. This allows it to accept foreigners not only without weakening the cultural organism but even strengthening it; because it accepts foreign input on its own terms. A Traditionalist “race” surviving over the course of millennia without succumbing to the cyclical laws of decay is the Jewish. They are the Traditionalist “race” par excellence. No better example can be had than this People that has maintained its nexus with its Divinity as the basis of cultural survival, whose religion is a race-founding and race-sustaining mythos. 

Phineas.jpgContrary to the beliefs of certain racial ideologues, including extreme Zionists and ultra-Orthodox Jews, this survival is not the result of bans on miscegenation. The Jewish law as embodied in the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, is based not on zoological race but on a race mythos. The Mosaic Law demands “race purity” in the Traditionalist sense; that of a community of belief in a heritage and a destiny. 

Bizarrely, some white racists have adopted the Torah commandments as being based on genetic purity, in their belief that whites are the true Israelites. For example the priest Phineas, at the time of Moses is held in esteem by such white supremacists because he speared an Israelite and a Midianite in the act of copulation. At this time apparently the Midianites were seducing Israel away from its God, towards Baal. A purge of Israel took place. However the chapter in its entirety makes plain this was a matter of religion, not miscegenation. The nexus between Israel and the Divine was being broken by the influence of “the daughters of Moab.” Israel’s Divinity is recorded as having threatened wrath because of “my insistence on exclusive devotion.” The Divine nexus was established for eternity with the line of Phineas because he had “not tolerated any rivalry towards his god”.  Moses himself had married the daughter of a Midianite priest, so the issue with the Midianites was clearly religious, and specifically that such foreign influences would break Israel’s nexus with the Divine that renders them a “special people”. Where marriages with Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, et al are prohibited it is because this nexus would be subverted. However, in the same book Deuteronomy, where the Israelite war code is being established, when a city has been defeated the adult males are to be eliminated, and the women and children are to be taken to be grafted on to Israel. The commandments for this type of “scorched earth policy” were based on preventing foreigners from teaching Israel their religions. There are precise laws as to marrying a non-Israelitish captive woman, who after a month of mourning for the deaths of her family, will have the marriage consummated and thereby become part of Israel. 

Jeremiah (ca. 600 B.C.), son of the high priest Hilkiah, was one of the most significant voices against culture-decay, analogous to Ipuwer the Egyptian sage,  Titus Livius, and Cato the Censor, in Rome, and our own Spengler and Evola. He warned that Israel would prosper while the nexus with Tradition and ipso facto with the Divine was maintained; Israel would fall physically if it fell away morally from that Tradition. Jeremiah saw the destruction of the Temple of Solomon and the carrying into Babylonian captivity of Judah. As with the other Civilisations that have fallen, the first symptom had been a subversion of its founding religion. Interestingly, religious decay would be quickly proceeded by an invasion of foreigners, reminiscent of Ipuwer’s warning of Egypt’s invasion by “Asiatics”. Hence, Jeremiah warns that invasion is imminent as a punishment for Israel’s departure from the Traditional faith: “I will pronounce my judgments on my people because of their wickedness in forsaking me, in burning incense to other gods and in worshiping what their hands have made”. From their self-styled role as a Holy People, they had fallen from the oath of their forefathers, Jeremiah/YHWH admonishing: “The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols. ‘Therefore I bring charges against you again,’ declares the LORD. ‘And I will bring charges against your children’s children’”. Jeremiah states that the priesthood has become corrupted, from whence the rot proceeds downward. “The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?” Specifically, all of Israel had become motivated by greed. The admonition was to stand at the “crossroads” as to what paths to follow, and choose “the ancient paths”. 

“From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when I punish them,” says the LORD. This is what the LORD says: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it’”.

Greed, or what we now call materialism, has been the common factor of the fall of Civilisations, referred to by sages and philosophers up to our own Spengler, Brooks Adams, and Evola. The other common factor, as we have seen, has been the corruption of religion and the priestly caste, the priests and the prophets being condemned by Jeremiah.

The perennial survival of the Israelites is based on their adherence to Tradition. Prophets such as Jeremiah are the Jews’ constant warning to stay true to their “ancient paths” or destruction will result. The Jews worldwide have had, when not a King over Israel, the focus of a coming King-Messiah, Jerusalem, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Temple of Solomon (including the plans to rebuild the Temple as another focus for the future) as their world axial points, and the Mosaic Law as a universal code of living across time and place.These axial points have formed and maintained the Jews as a metaphysical race. Whatever others might think of some of their laws and beliefs their maintenance of a Traditional nexus has allowed them to supersede the cyclic laws of decay perhaps like no other people, to overcome decline and be restored, while paradoxically being the carriers of cultural pathogens among other civilisations (Marxism, Freudianism). 

What the genetics of races shows, past and present, is that miscegenation has not been a cause for the collapse of civilisations. Perhaps dysgenics might cause such a collapse, but hitherto there seems scant evidence for it. By focusing to the point of ideological obsession and dogma on the assume causes of culture-death being that of miscegenation, the actual causes are overlooked. Perhaps civilisation, theoretically, might die through dysgenics, whether racial or otherwise, but it seems that before such a dysgenic process has ever taken place the morphological laws of organic life and death have intervened as witnessed by those such as Livy, Cato, Ibn Khaldun, and in our time Spengler, Evola and Brooks Adams.

lundi, 12 septembre 2016

Julius Evola - Tom Sunic & E. Christian Kopff

Julius Evola - Tom Sunic & E. Christian Kopff


Tom Sunic interviews renowned educator, classicist and writer Dr. E. Christian Kopff. Topics include:

- How Tradition get passed down through the generations
- The mind of Julius Evola and what he meant by “revolting against the modern world.”
- Evola’s thoughts on the “masses.”
- Evola’s thoughts on Western Tradition
- Evola’s thoughts on masculinity
- Evola’s relevance for Americans and the rest of the modern West
- Evola’s criticism of Communism and its comparison to Capitalism
- The spiritual life vs. racial science; the State vs. the People
- Ezra Pound
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Recorded April 20, 2010