Men Among The Ruins
JULIUS EVOLA: A RADICAL TRADITIONALIST
by
1. REVOLUTION-COUNTER-REVOLUTION - TRADITION
In the opening chapter of his work, Evola can be forgiven for appearing to
sound like a typical Catholic fundamentalist. According to the Baron,
socio-political subversion (eversio) was introduced into
But the word "conservative" can also be very misleading. Evola argues
that "it is necessary to first establish as exactly as possible what needs
to be 'preserved'". He is also under no illusion that capitalists have
long used this term with which to advance the interests of their own class,
rather than "committing themselves to a stout defence of a higher right,
dignity, and impersonal legacy of values, ideas and principles." This
suggests a kind of aristocratic benevolence, a chivalric sense of duty and
sacrifice. Evola also believes that the State must not concern itself with
economic matters, rather assuming a transcendent role in opposition to the
class-oriented obsessions of both the bourgeoisie and Marxists alike. Furthermore,
he tells us, "what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and
institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions
have been particular expressions." So, therefore, the success of tradition
lies in our ability to create new forms from the etymological drawing-board
which inspired those of the past, a process which works its way down through
the generations as though divinely inspired. In other words it is not the
transitory or - in the case of historical personality cults - even the
idolatrous facets which are of value, but those which are everlasting and
permanent. Indeed, Evola pours scorn upon the very term ‘historical’ because
such matters rise above and beyond the whole notion of history altogether. Mircea
Eliade has discussed this idea at length in The Myth of The Eternal Return
[Princeton, 1991], echoed here by Evola: "These principles are not
compromised by the fact that in various instances an individual, out of
weakness or due to other reasons, was able to actualise them or to even
implement them partially at one point in his life rather than another." The
designers and schemers of the modern age, of course, dismiss these aspects as
having been a consequence of the period in which they were apparently
expressed. So therefore tradition and historicism are totally irreconcilable.
The author’s own homeland also comes in for some criticism, with Evola firmly
believing that
Returning to the dangers of revolution - at least in the purely negative sense
as defined above - we are reminded of the more positive, Hegelian analysis:
"the negation of the negation." In other words, eradicating that
which in itself has been the great eradicator is a worthwhile objective. On the
other hand, Evola is being slightly pedantic when he criticises the adoption of
the "revolutionary spirit," lest it sound too progressive or wild. His
denunciation of the unfulfilling legend of technological advancement, however,
is very accurate indeed: "Those who are not subject to the predominant
materialism of our times, upon recognising the only context in which it is
legitimate to speak of progress, will be on guard against any orientation in
which the modern 'myth of progress' is reflected." Indeed, there are many
such examples, all of which contend either blindly or knowingly that the past
must be eradicated for the good of the present. This, says Evola, is
"history’s demolition squad." It is rather surprising, therefore, to
consider that in his youth Evola offered his support to Italian Futurism. Not,
of course, that Marinetti’s pledge to raze libraries and museums to the ground
was ever designed to be an attempt to destroy the perennial essence which
always transcends the purely anachronistic. The contentious issue of Fascism is
also tackled by Evola and is here regarded as being valid only when it concords
with tradition. To stand vigorously in favour of Fascism simply for its own
sake, is akin to the fulminating negativity inherent within many of its
anti-fascist opponents.
2. SOVEREIGNTY - AUTHORITY - IMPERIUM
According to Evola, "every true political unity appears as the embodiment
of an idea and a power, thus distinguishing itself from every form of
naturalistic association or 'natural right', and also from every societal
aggregation determined by mere social, economic, biological, utilitarian, or
eudemonistic factors." He goes on to point out that, for the Romans at
least, the very idea of an imperium of sovereign power was something perceived
to be highly sacred. This functioned by way of a mystical trinity comprised of
the Leader (auctoritas), the Nobility (gens) and the State (res
publica). Evola-s interpretation of the imperium is certainly supported by
those historians who - like Edward Gibbon and Oswald Spengler - have allowed
the
The author then turns his mind to judicial matters, stating that, whenever the
State rises above the merely temporal laws of the nation, it assumes the role
of an independently organic entity. In other words, Evola is basically
suggesting that in cases of national emergency, for example, the State can flex
its muscles and prove just how transcendent it really is by overriding the laws
of the judiciary. This notion will fill the average supporter of democracy and
egalitarianism with some horror, but Evola is referring to a central principle
of authoritative order rather than advocating that a fascist dictatorship rule
over the masses with an iron fist (although he does suggest that a temporary
dictatorship can often get things back on track). Indeed, this is rather
similar to the way
Evola also refutes the idea that power should rise up to the State from the
grass roots, for example in the way that Muammar al-Qathafi explains the
concept in The Green Book. As far as he is concerned, the State is not
the expression or embodiment of the people at all. This "political domain
is defined through hierarchical, heroic, ideal, anti-hedonistic, and, to a
degree, even anti-eudemonistic values that set it apart from the order of
naturalistic and vegetative life." But this is almost like a paradox. If
the State completely transcends the ordinary functions of what most people
consider to be the role of a State, then surely Evola-s vision is one of
anarchic authority? Evola may have disagreed with the use of the term
"anarchy," but surely the State for him is more mystical than fully
tangible in the purely ordinary sense? By this, I am implying that the State is
present as a guiding authority at the helm of a nation or empire, but absent in
terms of the way it is perceived by most people. Anarchy, of course, does not
mean that authority is non-existent, it simply refers to the absence of rule. Therefore
Evola-s concept of the mystical State may well be altogether detached from the
socio-economic version which writers like Peter Kropotkin (The State: Its
Historic Role), Michael Bakunin (Marxism, Freedom & The State)
or Herbert Spencer (The Man Versus The State) have gone to such great
lengths in order to analyse and dissect. Evola makes a profound distinction
between the political and social aspects of the State, arguing that it emanates
from a specific family (gens) and thus rejecting the idea that states
can arise from the naturalistic plane. At first, this appears to be a
contradiction in terms, because, surely, the family is a naturalistic
phenomenon? On the contrary, Evola is referring to an altogether different
interpretation of the term "family," that of the Mannerbunde (or
all-male fraternity). Given the nature of the Mafia, of course, Italians should
find it that much easier to appreciate the subtle differences in terminology. Evola
was also a Freemason and wrote extensively on the Mithraic sun-cult, both prime
examples of the Mannerbunde and possessing deep initiatic qualities which - by
way of a series of trials and degrees - take the male apprentice way beyond his
maternalistic upbringing on the exoteric plane. Thus a significant change takes
place both within the man himself and the way he is then perceived by others. But
this interpretation is not designed to leave women out of the equation, it
simply states that whilst men are the natural frequenters of the mystical, or
political, domain, women are the pivotal masters of society. It lies completely
"under the feminine aegis." Those readers who are familiar with
Evola-s Revolt Against The Modern World [Inner Traditions, 1995] will
grasp the higher significance of what Evola is trying to say. Indeed, in the
present work he summarises these metaphysical concepts thus: "The common
mythological background is that of the duality of the luminous and heavenly
deities, who are the gods of the political and heroic world on the one hand,
and of the feminine and maternal deities of naturalistic existence, who were
loved by the plebeian strata of society on the other hand. Thus, even in the
ancient Roman world, the idea of State and of imperium (i.e., of the sacred
authority) was strictly connected to the symbolic cult of the virile deities of
heaven, of light and of the super-world in opposition to the dark region of the
Mothers and the chthonic deities." If we follow Evola-s line of thinking,
we soon arrive at the medieval idea of the divine right of kings. This, he
tells us, was a development which - contrary to the earlier imperium - was not
consolidated "by the power of a rite." Traditional Catholics would
disagree wholeheartedly with this conclusion, at least right up until the
Reformation and Henry VIII-s well-documented break with
Evola is often portrayed by his opponents as a "fascist," but it may
surprise many of them to learn that he relegates "romantic and
idealistic" concepts such as the nation, the homeland, and the people to
the purely naturalistic and biological level. These issues, he contends, have
replaced a political principle that is representative of a far higher and more
penetrating tradition. By refusing to accept the legitimacy of feudalism or the
authority of the
But what of those nations which have actually followed the political principle
to the letter? We are informed by Evola that the nation will always be
potentially compromised, whilst "on the one side stand the masses, in
which, besides changing feelings, the same elementary instincts and interests
connected to a physical and hedonistic plane will always have free play; and on
the other side stand men who differentiate themselves from the masses as
bearers of a complete legitimacy and authority, bestowed by the Idea and by
their rigorous, impersonal adherence to it. The Idea, only the Idea, must be
the true fatherland for these men: what unites and sets them apart should
consist in adherence to the same idea, rather than to the same land, language,
or blood." This is a pretty bold statement, given that Evola is usually -
and wrongly - associated with certain elements of the Far Right. Perhaps this
is why the Assassins and their Knights Templar contemporaries found that they
had so much in common? That which is most important, therefore, is not one-s
adherence to a nation or a race - which instantly means that one must love,
respect and work for the best interests of his compatriots without question -
but one-s loyalty and fidelity to the very essence and spirit of tradition. In
Evola-s own words: "The true task and the necessary premise for the
rebirth of the 'nation' and for its renewed form and conscience consists of
untying and separating that which only apparently, promiscuously, or
collectively appears to be one entity, and in re-establishing a virile
substance in the form of a political elite around which a new crystallisation
will occur." This, of course, is very different to the sheep-like
mentality of most nationalist groups. One only has to look at the recent
revival in
3. PERSONALITY - FREEDOM v HIERARCHY
In this chapter the author begins by attacking liberalism, the chief scourge
behind the French Revolution. Many have tried to define liberalism, including
Traditional Catholics like Pope Pius XI [Quadragesimo Anno], Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre [They Have Uncrowned Him], Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany [What
Is Liberalism?] and Rev. Fr. Stephen P. DeLallo [The Sword of
Christendom], although today the word is wrongly associated with
anarcho-capitalists and right-wing libertarians. So how does Evola define the
term?: "The essence of liberalism is individualism. The basis of its error
is to mistake the notion of the person with that of the individual and to claim
for the latter, unconditionally and according to egalitarian premises, some
values that should rather be attributed solely to the former, and then only
conditionally. Because of this transposition, these values are transformed into
errors, or into something absurd and harmful." Egalitarianism - another
mainstay of the 1879 Revolution - is completely dismissed by Evola due to its
fundamentally ridiculous belief in the equality of all individuals. It not only
relegates the person to the level of a mere part within the broader egalitarian
mass, which Evola rightly shows to be a contradiction in terms, it obliterates
human diversity by suggesting that no one person is significantly different to
another. From the judicial perspective, of course, it is surely wrong to
establish a form of fake "justice" by ensuring that everybody is
legally bound in an unjust manner. It is also entirely out of step with Natural
Law. Evola explains: "the lower degrees of reality are differentiated from
the higher ones because in the lower degrees a whole can be broken down into
many parts, all of which retain the same quality (as in the case of the parts
of a non-crystallised mineral, or those parts of some plants and animals that
reproduce themselves by parthenogenesis); in the higher degrees of reality this
is no longer possible, as there is a higher organic unity in them that does not
allow itself to be split without being compromised and without its parts
entirely losing the quality, meaning, and function they had in it." When
Evola speaks of parthenogenesis, of course, he is referring to those
invertebrates and lower plants which engage in a form of sterile
self-reproduction. The allegedly "free" individual, therefore, is
considered to be inorganic and much lower than its organic superior. Meanwhile,
the true person is he who continues to remain "unequal" due to his
own distinct features and abilities. Natural individuation is not the same as
crass individualism. At the same time, however, Evola does not infer that
everyone deserves the "right" to be regarded as a person. Thus, he
dispels the liberal myth that all of us possess some form of "human
dignity" regardless of who we are. In fact there are several different
levels of dignity each contained within a just and specific hierarchy. So once
again, Evola is dismissing the egalitarian idea of a "universal
right," brotherhood of equality or an automatic entitlement of some kind. In
times gone by, however, "'peers' and 'equals' were often aristocratic
concepts: in
Moving on, the notion of freedom - a favourite catchword of those engaged in
the struggle between classes - is regarded in the same manner. It is something
we enjoy as a consequence of who we are as a person, rather than simply because
we happen to be a member of humanity. Evola remarks that freedom does not come
in any one form, but is actually multifarious and homogenous. He goes on to
suggest that the freedom "to do" is quite different from the freedom
"for doing." Indeed, whilst the former has to function within a
controlled and standardised system of liberal "equality" (which
inevitably leads, therefore, to one class disregarding the freedoms of others),
the latter has more in common with Aleister Crowley-s often-misunderstood
expressions "do as thou wilt" and "every man and woman is a
star." In other words, by possessing the freedom "to do," one
can follow one-s own unique course and act in accordance with one-s true
nature.
So how does the individual relate to society as a whole? Tradition accords with
the ultimate supremacy of the individual, or what Ernst Junger has defined
elsewhere as "the anarch" or "sovereign individual" [see
Eumeswil, Quartet, 1993]. Evola even puts the sovereignty of the person
before the State, because he views people not "as they are conceived by
individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated
beings, each one endowed with a different rank, a different freedom, a
different right within the social hierarchy based on the values of creating,
constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these it is possible
to establish the true State, namely an anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and
organic State." This vision, however, depends upon the advancement of the
person through various stages of individuation and self-awareness. Natural
inequality, therefore, will lead to an organic structure of society at the very
helm of which stands the "absolute individual." This figurehead, says
Evola, is completely different to the mere concept of the individual because it
encapsulates that which is most qualitative within man. The "absolute
individual" is fundamentally opposed to the concept that society itself is
the ultimate manifestation of humanity. It is the sheer pinnacle of a
transcendental sovereignty which represents the synthesising nature of the
imperium. Moreover, of course, the idea can become manifest within the
framework of the nation and seems defiantly opposed to present trends like
globalisation and multi-racialism: "Thus, it is a positive and legitimate
thing to uphold the right of the nation in order to assert an elementary and
natural principle of difference of a given human group over and against all the
forms of individualistic disintegration, international mixture and
proletarisation, and especially against the mere world of the masses and pure
economy." To achieve this process, Evola declares that the State must be
established from the nation itself.
But if one is seeking to fully align himself with the principles of Evolian
thought, a person who is free in the true sense of the word must never be
constrained by national, racial or family ties. This does not imply that he
should actively seek to turn himself against them, on the contrary, the
importance is to follow one-s own path. Indeed, this course - which must lead
towards the creation of the New Man - requires great discipline and
understanding. Many who try, however, will fall by the wayside: "he who
does not have the capability to dominate himself and to give himself a code to
abide by would not know how to dominate others according to justice or how to
give them a law to follow. The second foundation is the idea. previously upheld
by Plato, that those who cannot be their own masters should find a master
outside of themselves, since practising the discipline of obeying should teach
these people how to master their own selves." People are therefore
different, although Evola does make a distinction between the ruthlessness of
"natural selection" and that of respect. In ancient societies the
people who were most respected and admired were those with special abilities
and qualities, not simply animalistic strength and brute force. The secret, of
course, is to ensure that "power is based on superiority and not vice
versa." It is certainly not necessary to bludgeon people into submission
in order to get them to respect true leadership and ability. In the light of
what Evola really thinks about such matters, therefore, you have to wonder why
on earth Evolian Tradition was ever compared to Fascist totalitarianism in the
first place.
The fact that Evola so openly acknowledges that there are various stations in
life will outrage liberals, Marxists and advocates of democracy alike. But he
is, nevertheless, absolutely correct. Forcing people to accord with a societal
conglomeration which has been enshrined in law by a coterie of dogmatists and
architectural levellers, is simply not allowing people to discover and thus
accomplish their true destinies. Evola believes that historical events have
often been determined by the manner in which "the inferior" - which
is not used in a derogatory sense - regard their "superior"
counterparts. Indeed, to believe that humanity can somehow be subjected to a
form of international utilitarianism is naive and misguided in the extreme. Humans
are prone to "emotional or irrational motivation" and, inevitably, this
will usually be the dominant factor which shapes the course of their lives. The
Evolian - and, thus, traditional - approach to organisation lies in what is
described as the "anagogical function" of the State and its latent
ability to both engender and co-ordinate the individual-s sacrificial capacity
to ally himself with a higher principle. The success of man-s organisational
capacity, therefore, is not based purely on economics or prosperity but depends
on whether the organic hierarchical balance has been maintained effectively. Within
the liberal system, of course, the balance is upset by the fact that he
"who becomes an individual, by ceasing to have an organic meaning and by
refusing to acknowledge any principle of authority, is nothing more than a number,
a unit in the pack; his usurpation evokes a fatal collectivist limitation
against himself." Liberalism, therefore, may appear to defend freedom but
it is actually a means of subverting it altogether. Marxism functions in the
same way and both ideologies stem - once again - from the French Revolution:
"when Western man broke the ties to Tradition, claiming for himself as an
individual a vain and illusory freedom: when he became an atom in society,
rejecting every higher symbol of authority and sovereignty in a system of
hierarchies." Fascism, by falsely claiming to restore the traditional
equilibrium, actually worsened the situation by initiating a crude and
materialistic form of totalitarianism.
The worst example of liberalism is its dependence upon economic exploitation. Evola
charts the decline of economic stability from the death of the feudal system -
when "the organic connection . . . between personality and property,
social function and wealth, and between a given qualification or moral nobility
and the rightful and legitimate possession of goods, was broken" - and the
onset of the Napoleonic Code, right through to the desanctification of property
and the arrival of the unscrupulous capitalist. So what, according to Evola, is
the role of the traditionalist in light of the modern evils which were
unleashed over two hundred years ago? Our response must be founded upon a
return to origins: "To go back to the origins means, plainly and simply,
to reject anything that in any domain (whether social, political, or economic)
is connected to the 'immortal principles' of 1789, as a libertarian,
individualistic, and egalitarian thought, and to oppose it with the
hierarchical view, in the context of which alone the notion, value, and freedom
of man as person are not reduced to mere words or excuses for a work of
destruction and subversion."
4. ORGANIC STATE v TOTALITARIANISM
Evola now attempts to make a distinction between the totalitarian and organic
State. The democracies have gone to great lengths in order to portray the
traditional State "in a heinous way," ensuring that opponents of
democracy are instantly equated with brutality and fascism. Totalitarianism,
being a relatively modern word, is inevitably applied to past systems in a
purely retrospective manner. Evola, however, seeks to approach the question of
totalitarianism by examining the way in which the term is actually defined by
the democracies. Therefore whenever the author refers to the more positive
aspects of "totalitarianism," these components are said to accord
with the organic State: "A State is organic when it has a centre, and this
centre is an idea that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious
way; it is organic when it ignores the division and the autonomisation of the
particular and when, by virtue of a system of hierarchical participation, every
part within its relative autonomy performs its own function and enjoys an
intimate connection with the whole." It is not difficult to see how this
differs fundamentally with the individualism and liberalism of the modern age. Evola
rightly points out that more traditional societies were even able to
accommodate a loyal opposition. In stark contrast to the representative party
system of today, the early English Parliament was far more pluralist and was
often heard to refer to "His Majesty-s Most Loyal Opposition."
But the organic State also had a spiritual or religious dimension, whereby the
political was formulated in accordance with a more penetrating and unitary
outlook. This, says Evola, is what makes the organic synonymous with the
traditional. In the minds of the liberals and the communists, of course, this
healthy approach to former societies and a more pluralist style of organisation
inevitably means that tradition is wrongly equated with "fascism." Evola,
on the other hand, is able to counter this fraudulent analogy by explaining
that "totalitarianism merely represents the counterfeited image of the
organic ideal. It is a system in which unity is imposed from the outside, not
on the basis of the intrinsic force of a common idea and an authority that is
naturally acknowledged, but rather through direct forms of intervention and
control, exercised by a power that is exclusively and materially political,
imposing itself as the ultimate reason for the system." Having lived
through
The way in which the organic or traditional State is perceived is also
important. Fascism and Marxism tend to lead to blind statism, but Evola
believes that the organic State must be granted a degree of
"Statolatry." In other words, rather than seeking to worship the
State for its own sake, "[t]here is a profound and substantial difference
between the deification and absolutisation of what is profane and the case in
which the political reality derives its legitimisation from reference points
that are also spiritual and somehow transcendent." This is the difference
between the materialist and the spiritual, the totalitarian and the organic. The
spiritual element acts like a societal adhesive, binding together the unitary
whole to which the people are willingly attached without coercion or
repression. In contemporary Western societies it is considered normal in
certain occupations and ceremonies to undertake an oath. But despite being a
remnant of the distant past, the oath today has been stripped of its sacred
implications and has become empty, meaningless and contractual. This is because
the State and various other national institutions have become a merely temporal
form of authority, rendering the more spiritual expressions of verbal fidelity
completely irrelevant. The gulf between the contractual and the traditional is
demonstrated by the way in which the "Official Secrets Act" is
designed to secure the loyalty of the individual to the State. In feudal times,
of course, the intrinsically transcendent nature of the oath became manifest by
way of the sacramenum fidelitatis. This was infinitely more binding than giving
one-s allegiance to a company, an institution or a squadron.
But when the traditional State is said to represent a unitary organism it must
not be compared, warns Evola, to the humanistic vision epitomised by Hegel-s
"
5. BONAPARTISM - MACHIAVELLIANISM - ELITISM
Bonapartism is a rather unusual term and one which Evola borrows from R.
Michels, author of the 1915 work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of
the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Michels demonstrates how
representative democracy and "government of the people" leads to the
control of the State by a self-interested minority. This view is echoed by J.
Burnham in The Machiavellians, who explains that the so-called "will of
the people" is eventually superseded by the domination of a bureaucratic
clique. Thus Bonapartism begins with a popular demand for more freedom and
equality and ends in the totalitarian "dictatorship of the
proletariat." Evola likens this process to a people who have
catastrophically "led and disciplined themselves." After the decline
of its aristocratic nobility, ancient
Machiavellianism - despite its frequent portrayal as an aristocratic notion -
is also a highly individualist philosophy. Indeed, although the concept of The
Prince rejects democracy and the masses, it makes the fatal mistake of
encouraging power and authority to reside in the hands of man. In other words,
man is himself the be all and end all of Machiavellian doctrine. Such men are
not connected to a chain of Tradition, they are merely interested in deploying
their political capabilities to advance their own interests. His very position
is maintained by lies, deceit and manipulation, becoming a rampant political
monster to which everything must be methodically subjected. This is clearly
very different to the way in which traditional aristocracies functioned and
indicates that Machiavellianism is a consequence of the general decline. True
elitism, argues Evola, degenerates in four stages: "in the first stage the
elite has a purely spiritual character, embodying what may be generally called
-divine right-. This elite expresses an iddeal of immaterial virility. In the
second stage, the elite has the character of warrior nobility; at the third
stage we find the advent of oligarchies of a plutocratic and capitalistic
nature, such as they arise in democracies; the fourth and last elite is that of
the collectivist and revolutionary leaders of the Fourth Estate."
6. WORK: THE DEMONIC NATURE OF THE ECONOMY
When Evola discusses the "demonic nature of the economy," we are
instantly reminded of the capitalist free market and communism-s deterministic
assessment of man as economic unit (homo economicus). In the modern age
economic forces have become the new gods of Mammon, creating a dangerous and
cataclysmic antithesis to the spiritual aspirations of the ancient world. We
have already examined how Evola warns against the lack of hierarchical
authority, and in this chapter he demonstrates how both capitalism and Marxism
have completely subverted the organic nature of our whole existence: "as
long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production,
and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a
particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally
speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence -
then we are not even close to what is essential." Thus work and the modern
economy are depicted as the penultimate goals of human endeavour, rather than
man accepting that his natural interests must lie ultimately in the satisfaction
of his own material needs. This is not to suggest that food, clothing and
shelter are the most important facets of human existence, simply that they are
the most basic prerequisites of all. Man also needs to be satisfied both
spiritually and as part of a structure which: "neither knows nor tolerates
merely economic classes and does not know the division between -capitalists-
and -proletarians-; an order solely in terms of which are to be defined the
things worth living and dying for. We must also uphold the need for a true
hierarchy and for different dignitaries, with a higher function of power
installed at the top, namely the imperium." But this vision is hardly
being fulfilled today. Everything is geared towards economic production and,
inevitably, wage-slavery. Evola does not believe in the formulation of a new
economic theory, instead he explains that the current obsession with economic
matters can only decline once people change their attitudes completely:
"What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system,
but the value of the economy itself." This is a fundamental part of
National-Anarchist thinking, too, a total rejection of the Left-Right spectrum
which, once again, ever since the French Revolution has imposed upon us a
wholly superficial antithesis between two allegedly opposed economic
ideologies. Those so-called "backward" nations which, thus far, have
avoided economic development are said by Evola to "enjoy a certain space
and a relative freedom." By seizing upon the issue of class, Marxists have
deliberately obscured the components of the ancient world by smearing them with
an economic grime. In traditional societies, of course, the economy was simply
one area within an all-encompassing hierarchical structure. Terms like
"capitalist" and "proletarian" did not exist and class
struggle was redundant: "Even in the domain of the economy, a normal
civilisation provides specific justification for certain differences in
condition, dignity, and function." Marxism, says Evola, did not come about
due to the need for a resolution to the social question, on the contrary,
Marxism itself has exacerbated the problem by creating the myth of the class
system. In traditional societies "an individual contained his need and
aspirations within natural limits; he did not yearn to become different from
what he was, and thus he was innocent of that Entfremdung (alienation)
decried by Marxism." Leninists, Trotskyists and other advocates of the
class struggle will recoil in horror at this statement, but Evola is denouncing
the materialist desires of the common economic agitator rather than supporting
the aspirations of the "ruling class." Indeed, economic determinism
is considered to be unhealthy and detrimental because "it can legitimately
be claimed that the so-called improvement of social conditions should be
regarded not as good but as evil, when its price consists of the enslavement of
the single individual to the productive mechanism and to the social
conglomerate; or in the degradation of the State to the -State based on work-,
and the degradation of society to -consumer society-; or in the elimination of
every qualitative hierarchy; or in the atrophy of every spiritual sensibility
and every -heroic- attitude." There is little doubt, therefore, that the
appliance of the economic worldview comes at a great cost. Evola implores us to
express our real selves and to unleash our true potential. Each of us has a
different function and a unique position to fulfil. Class conflict, therefore,
is a diversion which has been thrust in the path of the unitary and the
organic. In terms of the way in which we approach work, Evola tells us that an
American attempt to extract more labour from a Third World workforce by
doubling their wages, was met with "a majority of the workers cutting
their working hours in half." Compare this traditionalist attitude with
that of the modern-day office or factory worker who perpetually competes for
overtime with his colleagues. Indeed, whilst traditional societies are merely
interested in satisfying their basic needs, those in the West endure
increasingly long hours, exhaustion, bad diets and severe health problems in
their pursuit for computers, televisions and cars. Evola notes that, prior to
the rise of the mercantile economy and the gradual evolution of capitalism,
"the acquisition of external goods had to be restricted and that work and
the quest for profit were justifiable only in order to acquire a level of
wealth corresponding to one-s status in life: this was the Thomist and, later,
the Lutheran view." Work was always designed to satisfy man-s basic needs
and provide him with the time he needed in order to pursue more worthy and
meaningful pursuits. But when the acquisition of wealth becomes such an
obsession that it imprisons the individual within an economic straightjacket,
something is clearly very wrong indeed. Success, therefore, is not determined
by the credit in one-s bank account or the growth of industry and technology,
it relates to the way in which an individual is able to progress in a more
spiritual sense. Living in accordance with one-s own intrinsic nature (dharma)
is far preferable to pushing oneself beyond the boundaries of normal behaviour
through greed and materialism. This trend is epitomised by the restless nature
of the capitalistic economy and its exploitative pursuit of new global markets.
In the knowledge, of course, that once it has run its inevitable course the
lack of available resources will herald its total collapse.
The emergence of capitalism has often been equated with the Protestant work
ethic, and is here dismissed by Evola for the simple reason that labour has
been transformed from a means of subsistence to an end in itself. It is not
only the Right who are obsessed with work, of course, it is the Left too. One
thinks of endless marches organised by the likes of Militant Labour and the
Socialist Workers Party, during which the only objective is to enslave the
proletariat to the employment system: "The most peculiar thing is that
this superstitious and insolent cult of work is proclaimed in an era in which
the irreversible and relentless mechanisation eliminates from the main
varieties of work whatever in them still had a character of quality, art, and
the spontaneous unfoldment of a vocation, turning it into something inanimate
and devoid of even an immanent meaning." Evola sees this process as the
very proletarianisation of life itself. There are certain parallels here with
Richard Hunt-s advocation of the "leisure society," in which man can
rediscover the natural and qualitative values of his existence. But Evola warns
his readers that we must not "shift to a renunciatory, utopian, and
miserable civilisation," but rather "clear every domain of life of
insane tensions and to restore a true hierarchy of values."
But whilst the individual is inadvertently eroding his own freedoms by viewing
work as the ultimate goal in life, the State is also endangering its own
existence through the encroaching scarcity of resources to which increasing productivity
leads. Evola argues that the way forward lies in "autarchy," and that
"it is better to renounce the allure of improving general social and
economic conditions and to adopt a regime of austerity than to become enslaved
to foreign interests or to become caught up in world processes of reckless
economic hegemony and productivity that are destined to sweep away those who
have set them in motion." On this point, however, Evola is perhaps
forgetting that the decline of capitalistic economies is inevitable and
therefore it is futile to postpone their collapse by implementing a policy of
protectionism. This strategy may indeed enable a country to stave off the
effects of an impending economic catastrophe, but given that all capitalist
systems rely on the internationalist system, this simply would not work in the
long term.
7. HISTORY - HISTORICISM
Evola now turns his attention to the way in which history is so often presented
as a religious tenet of the modern age, representing the switch from a world of
being towards that of a world of becoming. Indeed, whilst the former relates to
an organic and stable form of civilisation, the latter denotes a chaotic and
constantly evolving process in which "rationalist, scientific, and
technological civilisation" acts as the pied piper of our rapid decline. Rationalism
was perceived by Hegel as reality itself. Likewise, reality is also rational. But
traditional values, says Evola, cannot be analysed or defined in this way
because they are based on something far beyond the comprehension of mere
philosophy. Historicism often regards those episodes which it cannot account
for as "anti-historical." This has been said of historical phenomena
which appear to obstruct the process of development in accordance with the
rationalist worldview. This is why historicists and modernists are fond of
portraying conservatives - in the true sense of the word - as
"reactionaries" and enemies of progress. Furthermore, it is not men
who make history at all. Traditionalists like Evola have learnt to recognise
and accept the transcendental forces which are never taken into consideration
by rationalist historians: "only an obsolete 'historicism' can be so
presumptuous to reduce everything to a linear development." Indeed, both
Marxism and Christianity adopt this method and the cyclical nature of the
universe is therefore ignored.
8. CHOICE OF TRADITIONS
Whilst the word "tradition" is used to describe Evola-s cosmological
stance against the modern world (and that of certain other Traditionalists like
Guenon, Nasr and Schuon), he also accepts that during certain key periods of
his existence man has often used a series of more commonly known traditions in
order to act as a unifying force. These forms of tradition relate to specific
"suggestions and catchphrases" which are used to revitalise or
regenerate a civilisation, although they can often assume a very
"non-traditional" form. Using the example of
By charting the progress of the Italian Renaissance through to its logical
conclusion, the so-called Enlightenment, Evola demonstrates that "in the
same sense in which Renaissance Italy becomes the mother of geniuses and
artists, it also becomes the forerunner of subversion. And just as the communes
represent the first rebellion against an alleged political despotism, the
civilisation of the Renaissance likewise represents the 'discovery of man' and
of freedom of the spirit in the creative individual, as well as the principle
of the intellectual emancipation that constitutes the 'basis of human
progress'." The Risorgimento is not dissimilar in that it represented a
paradoxical alliance between Masonry and patriotism: "The representatives
of what at the time was still traditional Europe regarded liberalism and
Mazzinianism in the same way as today-s liberal and democratic parties regard
communism; the truth is that the subversive intentions of the former were not
much different from the latter-s, the main difference being that liberalism and
Mazzinianism employed the national and patriotic myth at the early stages of
the disintegrating action." The Risorgimento, therefore, was a
pseudo-tradition and at the very root of its secret machinations lay the
destruction of Tradition itself. The Carbonari was not fighting "
9. MILITARY STYLE - -MILITARISM- - WAR
Evola tells us that militarism is the enemy of democracy. This divergence of
beliefs came about as soon as economics had replaced things like Prussianism
and the Order of Teutonic Knights. Modern democracy, having originated in
The decline of the warrior ethos, according to Evola, is due to the fact that
democracies have diminished the importance of the political in favour of the
social. Previously, of course, Evola had referred to the Mannerbund or all-male
fraternity. Without this vital heroic element, the modern State has inevitably
become very inferior when compared to those of the past like
10. TRADITION - CATHOLICISM - GHIBELLINISM
Catholicism is perceived by many to be the pinnacle of Tradition. Evola accepts
that it contains many Traditional aspects, but goes on to say that in order to
be seen as a legitimate form of authority and sovereignty it must become fully
integrated within the sphere of Tradition itself. Catholicism alone is
inadequate and represents only a minimal current of a far wider Tradition. Here,
Evola opts to discuss the implications of this fact in both a political and
contemporary context, despite using examples from the past.
Religion falls into various categories and cannot match the supreme and unitary
nature of Tradition. In fact religion is simply an exoteric version of a
deeper, esoteric undercurrent. Christianity, for example, panders to the
masses, whilst Tradition is reserved for the spiritual elite: "In effect,
nobody with a higher education can really believe in the axiom 'There is no
salvation outside the Church' (nulla salus extra ecclesiam), meaning the great
civilisations that have preceded Christianity (the still-existing millennia-old
non-European traditions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and even relatively
recent ones such as Islam) have not known the supernatural or the sacred, but
only distorted images and obscure 'prefigurations' and that they amount to mere
'paganism', polytheism, and 'natural mysticism'." This statement would undoubtedly
arouse in the more "traditional" Catholic a feeling of revulsion and
anger, perhaps even accusations of "ecumenicalism." However, Evola is
not advocating the unification of all religions, but the acceptance that there
is a common Tradition which lies in each. He goes on to say that for a Catholic
"to persist in the sectarian and dogmatic exclusivism about this matter
would amount to being in the same predicament of one who wished to defend the
views of physics and astronomy found in the Old Testament, which have been made
obsolete by the current state of knowledge on these matters." Catholicism,
then, is only "traditional" in the sense that certain aspects tend to
accord with Tradition itself. The same can be said of Islam or Judaism.
We now turn our attention to the centuries-old debate concerning Catholicism
and Ghibellinism. The Ghibellines (like their
Evola-s whole point is that in ancient times the religious clergy were
answerable to the Emperor himself; not simply from a political perspective, but
also in a theological capacity: "It was only during the Middle Ages that
the priest nourished the ambition, not of being king, but of being the one to
whom kings are subject. At that time, Ghibellinism arose as a reaction, and the
rivalry was rekindled, the new reference point now being the authority and the
right reclaimed by the
Catholicism today is in great decline. Not least because it is always forced to
compromise with the prevailing ideologies among which it finds itself. Liberalism
is gradually eroding the last vestiges of Catholic tradition in the same way
that it is eating away at the edifice of Tradition in general. The likes of the
Protestant Reformation and Vatican II have taken their toll, and we now see
modernist popes tolerating bastardised currents like Liberation Theology,
supporting the burgeoning New World Order and kneeling before the might of
International Zionism. Evola tells us that "the decline of the modern
Church is undeniable because she gives to social and moral concerns a greater
weight that what pertains to the supernatural life, to asceticism, and to
contemplation, which are essential reference points of religiosity." It is
certainly not fulfilling any kind of meaningful role, either: "For all
practical purposes, the main concerns of Catholicism today seem to turn it into
a petty bourgeois moralism that shuns sexuality and upholds virtue, or an
inadequate paternalistic welfare system. In these times of crisis and emerging
brutal forces, the Christian faith should devote itself to very different tasks."
In the medieval period the Church possessed a more traditional character, but
only due to the fact that it had appropriated so many Classical elements and,
by way of Aristotle, lashed them firmly to the theological mast being
constructed by Thomas Aquinas during the thirteenth century. Catholicism,
however, will never reconcile itself with the problem of how to deal with
politics and the State because it relies upon separation and dualism. Tradition,
on the other hand, is integralist and unitary.
Evola notes that certain individuals and groups have sought to incorporate the
more traditional aspects of Catholicism within the broader and far more
encompassing sphere of Tradition itself. Evola-s French philosophical
counterpart, Rene Guenon, for example. Catholics, however, are far too dogmatic
and would merely seek to make Tradition "conform" to their own
spiritual weltanschauung. This, says Evola, is "placing the universal at
the service of the particular." Furthermore, of course, the
anti-modernists who are organised in groups such as The Society of St. Pius X
and the Sedavacantist fraternity do not speak with the full weight and
authority of the Church. They are, therefore, powerless because "the
direction of the Church is a descending and anti-traditional one, consisting of
modernisation and coming to terms with the modern world, democracy, socialism,
progressivism, and everything else. Therefore, these individuals are not
authorised to speak in the name of Catholicism, which ignores them, and should
not try to attribute to Catholicism a dignity the latter spurns." Evola
suggests that because the Church is so inadequate, it should be abandoned and
left to its ultimate doom. He concludes by reiterating the fact that a State
which does not have a spiritual dimension is not a State at all. The only way
forward, he argues, is to "begin from a pure idea, without the basis of a
proximate historical reference" and await the actualisation of the
Traditional current.
11. REALISM - COMMUNISM - ANTI-BOURGEOISIE
Intellectuals are often attracted to communism because it claims to be
anti-bourgeois, despite communism itself claiming to despise the intellectual
for his bourgeois origins. According to Evola, however, this is misleading and
such people are deluding themselves. Evola also accepts that the word
"bourgeois" relates to far more than economics; something representing
a specific cultural niche in which everything is "empty, decadent, and
corrupt." The role of the traditionalist must be to overcome these
materialist concepts. Indeed, the perennial attraction of communism indicates
that it would be a big mistake to combat Marxist values with a "bourgeois
mentality and spirit, with its conformism, psychological and romantic
appendices, moralism, and concerns for a petty, safe existence in which a
fundamental materialism finds its compensation in sentimentality and the rhetoric
of the great humanitarian and democratic worlds - all this has only an
artificial, peripheral, and precarious life." This is why conservatism has
always been so ineffective, and why the adoption of a true anti-bourgeois
spirit is so essential in the ongoing replenishment of Tradition. For Evola,
the solution lies in realism.
In its efforts to overcome the unreality of bourgeois society, Marxism
simply relegates the individual to an even lower level. This results in the
systematic spawning of homo economicus, a process in which "we go toward
what is below rather than above the person." It represents a collective
reduction of the human type, rather than a raising of the individual
consciousness. So how does Evola-s realism differ from the kind of
"neo-realism" advocated by left-wing philosophers such as Sartre? The
latter, of course, brings human existence into line with transient concepts
such as psychoanalysis. This is achieved by creating a kind of
psycho-collectivisation, whereby man-s various personality traits are said to
originate from below. Evola, on the other hand, accepts "that existence
acquires a meaning only when it is inspired by something beyond itself." Therefore
the political, economic and psychological aspects of Marxism are identical and
adhere to a decidedly false sense of "realism."
Given the confusion which has been generated by the Marxists and their
misleading interpretation of "realism," perhaps another solution is
needed to counteract the unreality of the bourgeoisie; one which seeks to go
higher, rather than lower? Evola explains: "It is possible to keep a
distance from everything that has only a human and especially subjectivist
character; to feel contempt for bourgeois conformism and its petty selfishness
and moralism; to embody the style of an impersonal activity; to prefer what is
essential and real in a higher sense, free from the trappings of sentimentalism
and from pseudo-intellectual super-structures - and yet all this must be done
by remaining upright, feeling the presence in life of that which leads beyond
life, drawing from it precise norms of behaviour and action." This means
that a new breed of individuals must bear the task of combining strong
anti-Marxism with a committed opposition to bourgeois society: "Lenin
himself said that a proletarian, left to himself, tends to become a
bourgeois." It is therefore not necessary to become a communist in order
to reject the trappings of conformity and sterility, although the shortcomings
of Fascism and its well-documented reliance upon the bourgeoisie suggests that
it, too, is incapable of providing real solutions to the problem. Evola also
notes that "[e]ven those who call themselves monarchists can only conceive
of a bourgeois king."
I have already discussed how communists harbour an ironic grudge towards
the intellectual, but Evola demonstrates that the only answer to the
intellectual/anti-intellectual debate is to put forward a third option: the Weltanschauung,
or worldview. This is "based not on books, but on an inner form and a
sensibility endowed with an innate, rather than acquired, character." In
other words, a mentality which does not remain fixed in the mind or submerged
in theories, but realised in a more practical sense through the deployment of
the will. Thought alone is incapable of taking on a life of its own or
significantly changing anything. Here we return to the traditional idea of an
organic civilisation which is expressed not by culture, but through a deeper
understanding of eternal values. Thus, intellectualism and culture are merely
used to express the more fundamental worldview, not designed to evolve into
determining characteristics of humanity in their own right: "this is sheer
illusion: never before as in modern times was there such a number of men who
are spiritually formless, and thus open to any suggestion and ideological
intoxication, so as to become dominated by psychic currents (without being
aware of it in the least) and of manipulations belonging to the intellectual,
political, and social climate in which they live." The worldview of which
Evola speaks, of course, is Tradition. This represents the basic impetus which
must beat firmly within the heart of all those who wish to bring to an end the
contaminating era of the bourgeoisie.