American "Civilization" [by Julius Evola]

[Thulean Imperial Inquisitor]

I have little patience for Evola, especially his neo-pagan/occult/Hindu views.

Perhaps you dont understand them. Paganity is nature, everyone is born a pagan (unbaptised) until they are put into some religion (like Judeo-Christianity) by the people that raise them and most people arent even asked.

His theories concerning Christianity are completely wrong and at most are based on out-dated theories that scholars have long refuted.

How can they be wrong if Judeo-Christianity is only a "mish mash" of varius pagan legends and then some old stories from Jews? And how can any theories about Judeo-Christianity be out-dated when Judeo-Christianity itself is based on an oudated "Holy" book known as the Bible.

As I stated elsewhere, whatever valid points he does make can easily be read in other peoples' works, especially avant-garde/non-conformist Christian writers.

Being Judeo-Christian is half-way being non-European.

I must state at the end I have no interest dicussing this further on this fine thread of meister Evola.

[Taras Bulba]

Perhaps you dont understand them.

I understand his theories, and I still reject them.

Being Judeo-Christian is half-way being non-European.

First:it should be noted that "Judeo-Christian" is an oxymoron

Second: Europe as anything more than a mere geographical entity with constantly changing borders, is by and large a Christian construct.

The concept of "Europe" that neo-pagans claim as theirs would not have made sense to the historical pagans. Only the Classical Pagans had any idea of a European continent, but nothing more than that. And even then, Greek writers constantly wrote about how inferior European peoples were to the Asian empires.

The concept of there actually being a great European civilization characterised by not just mere geography but by a unifying concept of itself gave birth during the Christian era. In fact the notion of Greece and Rome even being the birth-place of Europe was a Christian projection onto the past, since neither Greece nor Rome saw themselved as "Europeans".

And this Christian concept is still alive with the current Pope Benedict XVI, who consistently upholds his duty to protecting European Christendom and the European identity.

So yeah, you neo-pagans, as usual, rip off a Christian concept and try to claim it as your own. Christianity built and preserved Europe, and Europe developed and defined Christianity. The two are intimately linked, whether you like it or not!

In fact pagans were more than willing to import foreign/non-European gods. Hell, they even tried to incorporate the Jewish god into their pantheon. And even later, many pagan tribes willingly worshipped Christ alongside their own pagan gods. It was worship of Christ alone they opposed, not worship of Christ altogether. So, the concept of paganism and Europe that you and Evola uphold simply never existed.

On another note, for those interested; John P. Reilly gives very good and detailed outlines and reviews to both

Revolt Against the Modern World:
http://www.johnreilly.info/ramw1.htm

and

Men Among the Ruins:
http://www.johnreilly.info/mar1.htm

Along with other works by Evola.

[Prince Eugen]

During Christmas hollidays i read the ''Revolt against Modern World'' (English version) and i want to order ''Riding the Tiger'' and '' Men among Ruins''.I have also read a couple of years ago the ''Metaphysics of Eros''!
I am very fond with Evola traditionalist ideas.
The fascist Italy and NS Germany considered Evola's doctrine too much extreme and Evola criticazed both regimes as very plebeans even during the end of the war in Wienna he tried to create a pan European army to defend 3rd Reich from both AngloAmericans and Soviets!

[visigodo]

LATIN CHARACTER—ROMAN WORLD—MEDITERRANEAN SOUL.

Julius Evola.

Things are similar in the ethnic domain, since it has long been established that both the early Roman world and early Hellas were the creations of forces belonging to the same Indo-European stock, from which later on the properly Germanic populations separated themselves. There is more. It is important to note that when we refer to the world of the origins, the expression "Latin" assumes a meaning that eventually undermines the thesis of today's zealous supporters of the anti-Nordic, Latin spirit. One of the results of recent studies concerning pre-Roman and prehistoric Rome is that the forefathers of the "Latins" were a people whose ethnic and spiritual kinship with the family of Nordic-Aryan peoples is unquestionable. These forefathers were a splinter group from the "battle-axe people," who practiced the ritual of cremation; this people, after traveling to central Italy, opposed the local Oscan-Sabellian civilization characterized by the funeral ritual of burial. The relationship of the latter civilization with the pre- and non-Indo-European Mediterranean and Asian-Mediterranean civilizations is also apparent.
Among the oldest traces left behind by these Nordic stocks, we should mention those discovered in Val Camonica. These traces have an interesting correspondence with the prehistoric traces of primordial races, both Northern-Atlantic (Franco-Cantabric civilization of the Cro-Magnons) and Northern-Scandinavian (Fossum culture). There we find the same symbols of a "solar" spirituality, the same style, the same absence of traces of feminine (telluric -maternal) cults that instead are abundant in non-Indo-European civilizations or in degenerated Mediterranean paleo-Indo-European civilizations (Pelasgians, Cretans; in Italy, the civilization of Maiella, the Etruscans, etc.) Moreover, there is an affinity among the traces of Val Camonica and the civilization of the Dorians, people who arrived in Greece from the North and created Sparta, and who worshiped Apollo as the Hyperborean god of light. Thus it was said that the migration of the peoples from whom the Latins descended (the final destination of their migration in Italy being Rome) was analogous to the Achaean- Duric migration that in Greece ended with die creation of Sparta; Rome and Sparta are both corresponding manifestations related to those that are properly Northern. With the early Roman spirit and with Sparta we find a heroic-sacred world that was characterized by a strict ethos, love of discipline
and of a virile and dominating spiritual attitude. This world was not perpetuated in the following "Classical" civilization from which, in turn, the "Latin spirit" and the "unity of the peoples of Latin civilization" derived.
Instead, if by using the term Latin we refer to the origins, we see a complete overthrow of the "Latin" thesis. The Latins were among the peoples who bore the influences to which the early Roman world owes its greatness and its specific traits. The Latins had forms of cult, civilization, and life that were not opposed, but instead similar to those exhibited by the German peoples before a decadent world that rather than being "Latin" was only "Romanic" and largely Byzantinized. The later "Latin world," beyond the external facade and mere vestiges, included heterogeneous forces that were susceptible to convergence only when nothing more serious than "the world of letters and the arts" was to be found (with the exception of Catholicism and some ways of feeling to which the term Mediterranean, rather than Latin should be applied)." I would like to underscore the importance of what I have briefly stated, not only from a historical and retrospective point of view, but also from a normative one; the similarities between the early Roman and Spartan lifestyles are obvious and well acknowledged, as are the similarities between both of them and some characteristic traits displayed by Germanic peoples; these traits, due to a number of circumstances, were retained by Germanic populations longer than by other nations of the same Indo-European stock. If those who are mere "Italiots" and who also want to feel "Latin" and "Mediterranean" could meet face-to-face with the Romans of the heroic period,
their intolerance for the latter's discipline, honor, hierarchy, straightforwardness, and anonymous and anti-exhibitionist virility would not be any less than the intolerance provoked in them by their anti-German and especially anti-Prussian animus (it is significant that L. Aldington called the Romans "the Prussians of their times").
In such an animus there are certainly suspicious racial influences at work. This is an example of what is wrong with too many Italians, who employ the thesis of the "Catholic Latin spirit" or the "Mediterranean civilization" as a specious alibi. This alib i has often been associated with the polemic proper to a militant Guelphism, which conveniently identified the Roman and Latin spirit with the Catholic Church, in an anti-German and anti-Ghibelline function. Thus, there have been people who ventured to speak of the antithesis between "temple" and "woods"; the "temple" representing the Latin-Catholic view of life, with its principles of authority, order, and transcendence, while the "woods" represent the chaotic, "Nibelungen-like," individualistic, and Protestant Germanic world. This is pure amateurishness typical of partisan pseudo-intellectuals, who are obviously acquainted only with Wagner and some German Romantic philosophers and who are ignorant, or pretend to be, of everything that remained in many social strata of the Central European States as an inner attitude until recent times, before the catastrophe of the two world wars. In regard to the external domain, Pareto rightly remarked that in Germany, despite its being mostly Protestant, the feelings of order, hierarchy, and discipline are very strong, while in Italy, despite its being a Catholic country, all this is present to a negligible degree, while individualism, disorder, instinctiveness, and lack of discipline tend to prevail." Here lies the true root of the intolerance that a certain Italian type harbors toward the Germanic element. It does not have to do only with another way of life, but also with another ethical conception. For example, in a Germanic heroic saga there is a characteristic episode: a prince, having been invited to the court of King Etzel, is warned that a trap is probably being set for him. That prince replied: "I will go anyway, and if that is true, that is too bad for King Etzel." He meant to say that he could have lost his life, but Etzel would have lost his honor. On the contrary, according to a certain "Mediterranean" mentality, one who is able to deceive others enjoys a higher standing, though in so doing he has no care or respect for himself.
Here another example comes to mind, concerning one of the most zealous supporters of the Latin, Catholic, anti-Germanic myth, namely Guido Manacorda. In one of his lectures, he thought it was in good taste to poke fun at the "gloomy" Germanic notion of loyalty. He reported on one of the leg-ends concerning Faust, according to which the latter sealed his famous pact with the devil with his word of honor. Faust learns from a hermit that he is being led to the abyss and that he needs to rescind the deal. As soon as Faust becomes aware of it and is about to act accordingly, he remembers he has given his word. At that point, he feels that he cannot break his promise. Manacorda, with a sinister spirit, commented: "One of us Latins would have found a way to screw the devil too!" I have no doubt about that. I will later return to the problem of ethics and style. For now I want to note that the myth of the Italian-German "Axis" could have had a particular meaning, not only from a political perspective, but also from a moral and spiritual one, in view of a reciprocal integration of the two peoples and cultures.
This is one of the reasons that the "Axis" was sabotaged and regarded as "unpopular"; the contrast between the confused nationalistic and patriotic myth connected to residual ideas of the Risorgimento on the one hand, and the yearning for a strong and "Roman" State on the other, played its own part in such a dislike, which was harbored even by many people who claimed to be Fascist. All these people can be happy again, now that Italy has returned to be itself—the petty Italy of mandolins, museums, "0 Sole Mio," and the tourist industry (not to mention the democratic quagmire and the Marxist infection), having been "liberated" from the difficult task of forming itself on the inspiration of its highest traditions, which must be described not as "Latin," but as "Roman."
When we talk about racism, most people think of anti-Semitism; in other words, they refer to the mere anthropological and biological domain: only a few have an idea of the meaning that this doctrine may have from a practical and formative point of view and even of its political importance. However, here I will state only what is relevant to the specific order of ideas that we are discussing.
First of all, we must note that in modern racism the race is not considered within the context of those general classifications that school textbooks refer to as the white, yellow, and black races. The race is conceived as a more elementary and specialized unit; thus, within the white race there are several races. These elementary races are defined in terms that are not merely biological and anthropological, but psychological and spiritual as well. To each of the racial components there correspond various dispositions, forms of sensibility, values, and views of life which are also differentiated." There are actually no civilized peoples or nations composed of pure individuals belonging to the same single race. All peoples are composed of more or less stable racial mixtures. We go from the theoretical domain to the practical one, or to "active racism," whenever we take a position before the racial components of a given nation, refusing to acknowledge to all of them the same value, the same dignity, and the same right to impart the tone and form to the whole. At that point a choice, an election, and a decision are necessary. One of the components must be given pre-eminence, by referring to the typical values and the human ideals that correspond to it. In the case of German populations, the racial component that is superior to the other ones with which it is mixed has usually been identified with the Nordic element. When we consider Italy, the superior component is identified with the Roman element. First of all it is necessary to overcome the frivolous pride of some nationalists, according to whom the ultimate criterion consists of having the same fatherland and a common history; hence the Italian habit of indiscriminately exalting everything that is "ours." The truth is that just as with any great historical nation, and likewise with Italy, despite a certain uniformity of the common type, there are different components. It is important not to create illusions but to objectively recognize that which, although being” ours," hardly corresponds to a higher calling. As we can see, this is the counterpart of what I discussed in chapter 8 about the political-cultural domain, in regard to a "choice of traditions." The creation of a new State and of a new civilization will always be ephemeral unless their substratum is a new man. In Italy, if this problem were to be addressed by a revolutionary-conservative movement, the differentiation of such man would appear as a difficult and even problematic affair, due to the presence of suspicious ethnic components, chaotic and anarchic inclinations, weakness of character, unfavorable atavisms, and false values.
Having already discussed the myth of the Latin spirit, I will now focus on another element, which is less intellectual and more concrete than the "common Latin civilization." This element maybe designated as "Mediterranean." Italians oscillate between the two poles constituted by the Roman and the Mediterranean elements; they represent, respectively, the superior and inferior limits of the possibilities that Italians have in themselves and of a legacy transmitted through the centuries. The main task, atboth an individual and a social level, consists of maturing an inner decision, and in promoting a greater crystallization and formation in the direction of the first element. This task requires a double analysis. On the one hand, it would be necessary to emphasize the traits of style and character that are typical of the Roman component, independently from any form of expression tied to the past. On the other hand, we should identify the undesirable qualities of the "Mediterranean" type that are also present, if not prevalent, in the Italian people, and determine how it would be possible to rectify them.
Concerning the first issue, we should be able to extract from the Roman spirit a living content that has nothing to do with rhetorical assumptions or with museums and scholarly dissertations, such that even a simple man could understand it without the need of erudition and historical notions. To this effect, I have spoken about "elements ofstyle." These elements have to be drawn from what we know about the Roman tradition and customs; in this case too, we need to discriminate among various types of Ro man spirit. Alongside the Roman spirit of the origins, which reproduced in a special and original form a type of culture and custom common to the main, higher Indo-European civilizations, there were a Hellenized (in the negative sense of the term), a "Punicized," a "Ciceronian," an "Asiaticized," and a Catholic Roman spirit. The reference points should not be sought in these cases. Everything that is valid in them can be reduced to the first Roman spirit.
This original Roman spirit was based on a human type characterized by a group of typical dispositions. Among them we should include self-control, an enlightened boldness, a concise speech and determined and coherent conduct, and a cold dominating attitude, exempt from personalism and vanity. To the Roman style belong virtus, in the sense not of moralism, but of virile spirit and courage; fortitudo and constantia, namely spiritual strength; sapientia, in the sense of thoughtfulness and awareness; disciplina, understood as love for a self-given law and form; fides, in the specifically Roman sense of loyalty and faithfulness; and dignitas, which in the ancient patrician aristocracy became gravitas and solemnitas, a studied and moderate seriousness. The same style is characterized by deliberate actions, without grand gestures; a realism that is not materialism, but rather love for the essential; the ideal of clarity, which
eventually turned into rationalism in only some Latin peoples; an inner equilibrium and a healthy suspicion for every confused form of mysticism; a love for boundaries; the readiness to unite, as free human beings and without losing one's identity, in view of a higher goal or for an idea. We may also add religio and pietas, which do not mean "religiosity" in the Christian sense of the word, but instead signify for a Roman an attitude of respectful and dignified veneration for the gods and, at the same time, of trust and re-connection with the supernatural, which was experienced as omnipresent and effective in terms of individual, collective, and historical forces.
Obviously, I am far from suggesting that every Roman man and woman embodied these traits; however, they represented the "dominant factor" and were em-bodied in the ideal that everybody perceived to be specifically Roman. Likewise, these elements of style are self-evident. They are not connected to past times; they may act in every period as character forming influences and effective values as soon as a corresponding calling is awakened. They have a normative value. In the worst case, they might have only the value of a measure. Moreover, we should not think they must be adopted by every individual; this would be absurd and even unnecessary. It would suffice if only a certain social stratum, called to inspire the others, could embody them. Now we need to characterize the second pole, namely the "Mediterranean" style. The way in which I employ the term Mediterranean requires a further clarification. I have often spoken of Mediterranean civilization, the Mediterranean spirit, and even a Mediterranean race, taking little care to indicate what these vague and elastic designations meant. "Mediterranean" merely designates a space, or a geographical area in which very different cultures and spiritual and racial powers
often clashed or met, without ever producing a typical civilization. In anthropology, the "Mediterranean" myth was promoted by Giuseppe Sergi in the past century. Sergi believed in the existence of a Mediterranean race of African origin to which many Italic populations belonged, including the Pelasgians, the Phoenicians, the Levantines, and other half-Semitic populations: these are hardly flattering kinships, which should rather be referred to as "bastard brothers," an expression Mussolini once used to refer to the myth of the Latin spirit. The theory of Sergi is now passed. I believe it is fitting to use the term Mediterranean to designate some suspicious spiritual and ethnic components. These components, which are found in other Mediterranean and "Latin" more or less mixed populations, are also present in various strata of the Italian people, in opposition to its more noble and original nucleus (which
should not be called "Mediterranean") reflecting the "Roman" element.
Some psychologists have tried to define the Mediterranean type, not so much anthropologically, but in terms of character and style. In these descriptions we can easily recognize the other pole of the Italian soul, namely negative aspects likewise found in the Italian people, that need to be rectified. The first "Mediterranean" trait is love for outward appearances and grand gestures. The Mediterranean type needs a stage, if not for the sake of vanity and exhibitionism, at least in the sense that he often draws the impulse and motivation even for noble, remarkable, and sincere things from his main concern to be noticed by others and to make an impact on them. Hence the inclination for a "gesture"—that is, to do something to draw attention and curiosity, even when the person knows he is the only one to witness it. In the Mediterranean man there is a splitting between an "I" that plays the role and an "I" that regards his part from the point of view of a possible observer or spectator, more or less as actors do. Let me repeat: what is problematic here is the style, as the action or the work per se could have a positive value. But this has very little to do with Roman style, and it marks a disintegration and an alteration; it is the antithesis of the ancient saying esse non haberi [to be and not appear to be], or of the style due to which, among other reasons, ancient Roman civilization was characterized by anonymous heroes. In a wider context, the opposition could be formulated in these terms: the Roman style is monumental, monolithic, while the Mediterranean style is choreographic-theatrical and spectacular (see also the French notions of grandeur and glories). Thus, if this "Mediterranean" component of the Italian man were to be rectified, the best model to follow would be that of the ancient race of Rome—the sober, austere, active style, free from exhibitionism, measured, endowed with a calm awareness of one's dignity. To have the sense of what one is and of one's value independently of any external reference, loving distance as well as actions and expressions reduced to the essential, devoid of any exhibition and cheap showmanship—all these are fundamental elements for the eventual formation of a superior type. And even if the Italian man had in common with the Mediterranean type the above-mentioned "splitting" (as simultaneous actor and spectator), this splitting should be utilized for a careful supervision of one's conduct and expressions. This supervision should prevent every primitive spontaneity; one should carefully study one's own demeanor, not with the purpose of making an "impression" on others, or with great concern for their opinion, but for sake of the style that one intends to display to oneself. The propensity toward outward appearances is easily associated with a personalism that degenerates into individualism. This is another typical negative trait of the Mediterranean soul: the tendency toward a restless, chaotic, and undisciplined individualism. Politically speaking, this is the tendency that, after asserting itself by fomenting struggles and constant quarrels, led the Greek city-states to ruin, although it had previously contributed in a positive manner to their articulated formation. We find this trait in the turbulent times of the early empire; it finally erupted in medieval Italy, degenerating into particularisms, schisms, struggles, factions, and all kinds of rivalries. And al-though the Italian Renaissance has splendid features, they are nevertheless problematic features that derive from this Mediterranean individualism, which does not tolerate any general and strict law of order; and valuable possibilities dissipated in purely personal positions and in the fireworks of a creativity disjoined from any higher meaning and tradition. Here the author, rather than the work itself, is at center stage.
Thus, descending even lower, the same "Mediterranean" component is found in the contemporary pseudo-genial type, who is ever critical and always ready to uphold the opposite thesis in order to make a show of himself, being very clever in finding ways to get around an obstacle and in eluding a law. Even lower we find the maliciousness and the shrewdness (i.e., knowing how to "fool" others) that the Mediterranean type regards as synonyms for intelligence and superiority, whereas the "Roman" type would feel in this a degradation, a betrayal of one's dignity. I have discussed this attitude earlier on, when speaking of Manacorda. The Roman chastity or sobriety of speech, expression, and gesture is contrasted by the gesticulating, noisy, and disordered exuberance of the Mediterranean type, by his mania for communication and effusiveness, and by his feeble sense of boundaries, hierarchy, and silent subordination. The counterpart of these traits is often a lack of character, the tendency to get excited and become drunk with words: verbosity, a flaunted and conventional sense of honor, susceptibility, concern for appearances but with little or no substance. The expression "Pobre in palabras pero en obras largo" [Poor of words but rich in deeds], which characterized the ancient Spanish aristocratic type, should be compared with Moltke's characterization: "Talk little, do much, and be more than you appear to be"; all this points to the "Roman" style. The Mediterranean man often shares with the so-called "desert race" (a psychological-anthropological classification by Clauss, probably the effect of the presence within him of some elements of this race) an intense, explosive, and changeable temperament, tied to circumstances and also flaring up; an immediacy and the power of desire or affection in the emotional life; and random intuitions in the intellectual life. A style of psychological equilibrium and a sense of measure are not his strength. Although he is always cheerful, enthusiastic, and optimistic in appearance, especially when he is in the company of other people, in reality the Mediterranean type experiences sudden psycho-logical lows, and discovers dark and hopeless inner visions that make him anxiously shun solitude and return to exteriority, noisy social interactions, effusions, and passionateness.
While acknowledging this, in an eventual rectification we should not proceed by mere antitheses. Nietzsche's saying: "I evaluate a man by his power to delay his reactions" may certainly act as a general basic principle against disorderly impulsivity and "explosiveness." Nietzsche himself warned against every morality that tends to dry up every impetuous current of the human soul instead of channeling it. The capability of control, equilibrium, continuity in feeling and in willing must not lead to a withering and mechanization of one's being, as seems to be the case with some negative traits of the central-European and Anglo-Saxon man. What matters is not to suppress passion and to give to the soul a beautiful, regulated, and homogeneous, though flat form; but rather to organize one's being in an integral way around the capability of recognizing, discriminating, and adequately utilizing the impulses and the lights that emerge from one's deep recesses. It cannot be denied that passion is predominant in many Mediterranean Italian types, but this disposition does not amount to a defect, but rather to an enrichment, provided it finds its correlative in a firmly organized life. A more negative element of the Mediterranean type is sentimentality. Here we should distinguish between sentimentality and true feeling, the former being a degeneration and rhetorical form of the latter. The former plays a predominant role in various expressions typical of the Mediterranean soul. As an example we could adduce a number of sugary songs; the success and the echo they have in the popular soul, despite their patent insincerity, are significative. The Mediterranean man is always inclined to defend himself, just as the Nordic man tends to judge himself. The former is alleged to be more indulgent with himself than with others, and to be reluctant to examine the hidden motives of his inner life under a clear and objective light. This opposition is rather unilateral. Generally speaking, we should not ignore the dangers inherent in morbid introspection: I am thinking here of the line that leads to psychoanalysis and to the psychology of some of Dostoyevsky's characters on the one hand, and to certain complexes of guilt or existential anguish on the other. A style of simplicity and sincerity, first of all toward one's soul, is essential for a superior human type, as is the natural precept of being strict with oneself but understanding and cordial with others. Specific connections with the racial factor subsist only in part in this regard.
We should instead consider the importance that sex has for the Mediterranean type. The sexualization of morality on the one hand, and the turning of women and sex almost into an obsession on the other, are not just typically "Mediterranean" traits, since in the latter we can recognize one of the general phenomena of every degenerating civilization. We cannot deny, however, the emphasis that this inclination receives in the average Mediterranean-Southern type, in contrast with what was proper to the best Roman ethics, which as-signed to women and to love their rightful place, neither too high nor too low. Roman ethics pointed to the really fundamental values for a clear and virile formation of character and life, without adopting puritanical moralisms." Generally speaking, in Italy the relationships between the two sexes present a far from satisfactory aspect. Southern "temperament" with its primitive features, or with its up-to-date type of the Latin lover; an existing complex of bourgeois prejudices, with hypocrisies, inhibitions, conventionalisms; and a cheap and widespread corruption—all this is far from a line of clarity, sincerity, freedom, and courage. This theme would require a special analysis, but this is not the proper context for it, as it affects more general problems than those of the Mediterranean typology. Having briefly outlined these opposite elements of style, we should recall that they represent two limits. The qualities of the "Roman" type represent the positive limit of dispositions hidden in the best parts of our people, just as the qualities characterized as "Mediterranean" correspond to the negative limit and the less noble part of it; these limits are also found as components in other peoples, especially in the "Latin" group. However, we must realize that too many times behaviors resembling the "Mediterranean" type have been identified, especially abroad, as typically Italian, and that the "Mediterranean" component appears to have prevailed overall in Italian life following World War II.
And yet, a trend in the opposite direction would not be inconceivable under certain conditions. Only this trend could create the basis for a new State and a new society, for there is no doubt that formulas, programs, and institutions are of little help when there is no human substance, at least in the dominating elite. In every man there are various possibilities, at least in principle, that can be traced to primordial legacies. While in the best moments of our history we recognize the Aryan-Roman component, in periods of crisis and concealment we can detect the emergence and prevalence of what we have conventionally called the "Mediterranean" component; I said "conventionally" because it consists rather of Mediterranean debris and residues, influences of non-European races that have almost no history, or products of ethnic decay and erosion. In the rectifying and formative action the key role will always be played by the political myth, in Sorel's sense of a galvanizing ideaforce. The myth reacts on the environment, implementing the law of elective affinities: it awakens, frees, and imposes those possibilities of single individuals and the environment to which they correspond, while the others are silenced or neutralized. The selection can obviously take place in reverse, according to the nature of the myth. Thus, the communist and democratic myths appeal to what is most promiscuous and degraded in modern man; the corresponding movements owe their success to the mobilization of such elements through the inhibition of every different, higher possibility and sensibility.
If a rectification occurred, obviously we would not be able to see results overnight. Besides the above-mentioned condition, consisting of the presence of a political myth capable of creating a given climate, and a specific human ideal, what is needed is a persistent action for a sufficiently long period, stronger than the relapses and eventual reemergences of the opposite possibilities. As is well known, during the Fascist era Italy attempted to start similar developments, whose most serious concern, though it was felt only by a minority, was to increasingly transform a "Mediterranean" Italy into a "Roman" Italy. An adequate integrating counterpart could have been the initial separation of Italy from her "Latin sisters" and a reapproach to the German people, beyond the plane of mere political concerns. It goes without saying that considering the contemporary climate in Italy, with its democratic nadir and its Marxist intoxication, it would be purely utopian to suggest similar ideas again. This obviously does not affect their intrinsic and normative value, as well as the value of other "outdated" ideas. Their "outdatedness" could disappear only at the point of a rupture and a reaction from within, which quite often take place in almost organic terms at the end of dissolutive processes.

[Blazing]

Has anyone read "Sintesi dottrina della razza" of Evola?

I think it is only in Italian and not yet translated, not sure. This doctrine dazzles the mind, and is illuminating.
Simply it is based on Tradition, three pilars: Body, Mind and Spirit.

This doctrine is true.

[Oskorei]

It is dealt with to some degree in this thread:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41490

[Oskorei]

From "Revolt Against the Modern World" by Julius Evola: The World of Tradition; The Greater and Lesser War, pages 126-128 :

"...Those who love to contrast the past with our recent times should consider what modern civilization has brought us to in terms of war. A change of level has occurred; from the warrior who fights for the honor and for the right of his lord, society has shifted to the type of the mere 'soldier' that is found in association with the removal of all transcendent or even religious elements in the idea of fighting. To fight on 'the path to God' has been characterized as 'medieval' fanaticism; conversely, it has been characterized as a most sacred cause to fight for 'patriotic' and 'nationalistic' ideals and for other myths that in our contemporary era have eventually been unmasked and shown to be the instruments of irrational, materialistic, and destructive forces. It has gradually become possible to see that when "country" was mentioned, this rallying cry often concealed the plans of annexation and oppression and the interests of monopolistic industries; all task of "heroism" was done by those who accomplished soldiers to the train stations. Soldiers went to the front to experience war as something else, namely, as a crisis that all too often did not turn out to be an authentic and heroic transfiguration of the personality, but rather the regression of the individual to a plane of savage instincts, "reflexes", and reactions that retain very little of the human by virtue of being below and not above humanity. (1) The era of nationalism has known a worthy surrogate for the two great traditional culminations that are the universality of spiritual authority and heroic universality: I am referring to imperialism. Although in society the act of one who takes over somebody's else's goods by force, whether out of envy or out of need, is considered to be reprehensible, a similar behavior in the relationships between nations has been considered as a natural and legitimate thing; it has consecrated the notion of fighting; and it has constituted the foundation of the "imperialistic" ideal. It was thought that a poor nation"lacking living space" has every right, if not the duty, to take over the goods and the lands of other people. In some instances the conditions leading to expansion and to "imperialist conquest" have been fabricated ad hoc. A typical example has been the pursuit of demographical growth, inspired by the password "There is power in numbers". Another example, more widespread and denoting a lower mentality since it is exclusively controlled by economic and financial factors, is that of overproduction. Once a nation experiences an excess of production and the demographical or commercial "need for space", it is desperately requires an outlet. When the outlet of a "cold war" or diplomatic intrigues are no longer sufficient, what ensues are military expeditions that in my view rank much lower than what the barbaric invasions of the past may have represented. Such an upheaval, which has recently assumed global proportions, is accompanied by hypocritical rhetoric. The great ideas of "humanity","democracy", and "the right of a people to self-determination", have been mobilized. From an external point of view, not only is the idea of "holy war"considered "outdated", but also the understanding of it that people of honor had developed; the heroic ideal has now been lowered to the figure of the policeman because the new "crusades" have not been able to find a better flag to rally around than that of the "struggle against the aggressor". From an inner point of view, beyond all this rhetoric, what proved to be decisive was the brute, cynical will to power of obscure, international, capitalist, and collectivist powers. At the same time "science" has promised an extreme mechanization and technologization of war, so much so that today war is not a matter of man against man but of machines against man. Rational systems of mass extermination are being employed (through indiscriminate air raids, atomic weapons, and chemical warfare) that leave no hope and no way out; such systems could once have been devised only to exterminate germs and insects. In contrast to"medieval superstitions" that refer to a "holy war", what our contemporaries consider sacred and worthy of the actual "progress of civilizations" is the fact that millions of human beings, taken away en masse from their occupations and vocations (which are totally alien to the military vocation), and literally turned into what military jargon refers to as "cannon fodder", will die in such events.
Notes :
1.) The reading of the so-called war novels written by E.M. Remarque (especially"All Quiet On the Western Front") reveals the contrast between the patriotic idealism and rhetoric on the one hand and the realistic results of the experience of the war among European youth. An Italian officer, in the aftermath of World War I wrote: "When war is seen at a distance it may have idealistic and knightly overtones for the enthusiastic souls and some sort of choreographic beauty for aesthetics. It is necessary that future generations learn from our generation that there is no fascination more false and no legend more grotesque than that which attributes to war any virtue or influence on progress, and an education that is not based on cruelty, revolution and brutishness. Once stripped of her magical attractive features, Bellona is more disgusting than Alcina, and the youth who died in her arms have shivered in horror at her touch. But we had to go to war." V. Coda, "Dalla Bainsizza al Piave". It was only in the earlier works of Ernst Junger, inspired by his personal experiences as a soldier in the German army, that we find again the idea that these processes may change polarity and that the most destructive aspects of modern technological war may condition a superior type of man, beyond the patriotic and "idealist"rhetoric as well as beyond humanitarianism and antimilitarism.

http://heathenheretic.blogspot.com/2...fare-from.html

[SuuT]

I understand his theories, and I still reject them.

ALL of them? Which one's.


First:it should be noted that "Judeo-Christian" is an oxymoron

As is "Aryan-Christian."

Second: Europe as anything more than a mere geographical entity with constantly changing borders, is by and large a Christian construct.

That Christianity was a 'unifying' ideological impetus in the formation of present day moral/ideological europe cannot be denied or refuted. However, the conversion of Contantine along with the Germanic migrations/invasions set in motion the use of Christianity as a tool to gain power. Even after the Germanic kingships, borders canged constantly, and the use of Christianity with them--all the way up to our own time.

The concept of "Europe" that neo-pagans claim as theirs would not have made sense to the historical pagans. Only the Classical Pagans had any idea of a European continent, but nothing more than that. And even then, Greek writers constantly wrote about how inferior European peoples were to the Asian empires.

Your chronology here is anachronistic. Also, the historical record shows that Greek writers(?) having been cloistered by geography had greater access to, and therefore, greater perspective on the East.

The concept of there actually being a great European civilization characterised by not just mere geography but by a unifying concept of itself gave birth during the Christian era. In fact the notion of Greece and Rome even being the birth-place of Europe was a Christian projection onto the past, since neither Greece nor Rome saw themselved as "Europeans".

I'm not sure how this relates to Evola.

And this Christian concept is still alive with the current Pope Benedict XVI, who consistently upholds his duty to protecting European Christendom and the European identity.

So yeah, you neo-pagans, as usual, rip off a Christian concept and try to claim it as your own. Christianity built and preserved Europe, and Europe developed and defined Christianity. The two are intimately linked, whether you like it or not!

Christianity built and preserved a Europe: the question that might be asked here is: "to what end?"--What type of Europe emerged? What type of European was ultimately bred from Chrstian memes? More generally, what was it that montheism did to Europe...Is it now better off...? It is here that Evola (amongst others) are important.

In fact pagans were more than willing to import foreign/non-European gods. Hell, they even tried to incorporate the Jewish god into their pantheon. And even later, many pagan tribes willingly worshipped Christ alongside their own pagan gods. It was worship of Christ alone they opposed, not worship of Christ altogether. So, the concept of paganism and Europe that you and Evola uphold simply never existed.

Off course they were. Monotheism was as foreign to their 'nature' as is polytheism to the 'nature' of those en thrall to the illusions of monotheism. They did try to incorporate the Jewish (G)od--but he was made into a (g)od; and, redressed to assimilate into a pantheon of multifarious divinities as a reflection of the multifarious world they saw around them. Christ was worshiped as a 'pole' of being; not as the 'either/or' that is worshiped today by way of oversimplified and plebeian bifurcations of existence i.e. good and EEEEEEEEEEEEvil: Love is a 'pole' or 'point of will' and was not worhiped as (G)od because the very notion of a singular (G)od was intuitively absurd to their psyche: a square peg in a round hole. The concept of Paganism and Europe that Evola upholds did, in fact, exist. Moreover, Pagans of today are able to honor Jesus, just as the pagans of history, as an exemplar of Love. HOWEVER: SO much has to be erased from him--in fact, he almost has to be 'abstracted' for any pagan that respects himself to recognize Jesus as anything other than a force that has had the most detrimental effect on the europoid in the last 10,000 years...

[Oskorei]

Thompkins-Cariou has updated with several new and valuable articles not found elsewhere:
Fascism and the Traditional Political Idea
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id24.html

Interview with Julius Evola
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id20.html

http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id3.html

[Utopian]

Aside from Revolt his best work without a doubt is The Hermetic Tradition.