In this point, Julius Evola brings up the topic of nationalism, which he rejects. In particular, there is no support for anything calling itself “White Nationalism”, despite those movements that claim to be “radical traditionalist” or “influenced” by Evola. That would be to be based on “naturalistic” principles, a notion totally opposed to any Traditional state.
Rather, it must be based on the “Idea”, and of course, this Idea is the Traditional idea. This is not at all comparable to the American claim to be a “proposition nation”, that is, it is based on an “idea”, not on an ethnicity, religion, or culture. The American proposition is that “all men are created equal”, the polar opposite of the hierarchical state. In theory, that means that each man decides what is true and good, and determines his own meaning of life. However, what that means in practice is the idolization of the least common denominator. In theory, each man would be free to actualize his highest possibilities; in practice, the harsh reality is that the possibilities of the mass of men are quite limited. In the Traditional State, dominated by the highest spiritual ideal, common men are raised beyond their natural capacities and find their true meaning in higher values.
We see Evola proposing an Order, presumably along the lines of the Templars, that is, an order that is both spiritual and chivalric. That would only be possible when there are a sufficient number of men who both know and are faithful to higher principles, and can testify as witnesses to a higher authority.
Another point must be made in an analogous order of ideas. It concerns the position to take in regards to nationalism and the general idea of homeland. That is so much more timely, inasmuch as today, in order to try to save whatever possible, many people would like to adopt a sentimental and, at the same time, naturalistic conception of the nation, notions foreign to the highest European political traditions and irreconcilable with the same idea of the State which we spoke about. Even prescinding from the fact that we see the idea of homeland being invoked rhetorically and hypocritically by the most opposed parties, even by exponents of red subversion, that conception is not now factually at the height of the times because from one side it assists the self-formation of great supranational blocks, and from the other it always appears more necessary to find a European point of reference, unifying beyond the inevitable particularism that inheres in the naturalistic idea of the nation and still more in “nationalism”.
Nevertheless, the question of principle is more essential. The political plane in such regards is that of an elevated unity in respect to the unities defined in naturalistic terms as are also those to which the generic notions of nation, homeland, and people correspond. In this higher plane, the idea unifies and divides, an idea carried by a resolute elite and tending to be concretized in the State. For this reason the Fascist doctrine—that part of it which remains faithful to the best European political tradition—gave primacy to the Idea and State in respect to nation and people and it understood that nations and people acquire a meaning and form and participate in the higher degree of existence only within the State. Even in periods of crisis, as there is currently, it is necessary to hold firm to this doctrine. Our true homeland must be recognized in the Idea. Not being from the same land or the same language, but being of the same idea is what counts today. This is the base, the point of departure. As for the collectivistic unity of nation, of the children of the homeland [in French, des enfants de la patrie from La Marseillaise]—which has predominated more and more from the Jacobin revolution until now, we in any case oppose it with something like an Order, men faithful to principles, witnesses to a higher authority, and legitimacy proceeding precisely from the Idea.
In the matter of practical ends today it is desirable to arrive at a new national solidarity, only we do not descend to compromises in order to reach it; the presupposition, without which every result would be illusory, is separation from that and taking the form of a definite political arrangement from the Idea—such as political ideas and visions of life. Even today there is not another way: it is necessary that among the ruins the process of the origins be renewed, that which, depending on elites and a symbol of sovereignty or authority, unites the people in the great traditional States, as forms arising out of the unformed. This realism of the idea is not to be understood as meaning to remain on a fundamentally sub-political plane: that of naturalism and sentimentalism, if not completely of the patriotic rhetoric.
And in case we want to support our idea also on national traditions, one remains very careful: because there is an entire “homeland history” of Masonic and anti-traditional inspiration specializing in attributing national Italian character to the most problematic aspects of our history: starting from the revolt of the Communes supported by Guelphism. With it, a tendentious “Italianity” takes prominence in which we cannot and do not want to recognize ourselves. We leave it voluntarily to those Italians who celebrated the “second Risorgimento” with “liberation” and partisanship.
Idea, order, elite, State, men of Order—in such terms the lines are maintained, as long as it be possible.
I once made the point that White Nationalists with their petty agendas, orgiastic violence, and inability to contemplate the transcendent, had more in common both psychologically and in spirit with a drunken Red Army officer than the calm, disciplined SS foot soldier they desire to emulate. The remark was not well received, but I feel it had a certain truth to it.
Logres, Evola’s context was post-WWII Europe; he was pointing a way out of the ruins. Hence, a “white” imperium was implicit, given the ethnic constitution of Europe in 1951; he was not speaking of any other situation or other civilizations. The point, nevertheless, is that race, or even ethnicity, is insufficient as a unifying principle, and the facts bear that out. By definition, an Empire consists of ethno-states. So what Idea would unite them? Certainly, ethno-nationalism in itself would not.
As for Apeiron’s thoughtful point, we wonder if the race that created the “Iranian and Hindu as well as the ancient Greek and Roman” civilizations even still exists; certainly that spirit no longer exists. Ironically, this is implied in his comment about the “two daemonic hyper-material superpowers”, the modern equivalent of the “civilizations both of the East and West”.
It is fair to say that Evola rejected the Jacobinic manifestation of the nationalist idea as lesser to that of a spiritual Imperium of Aryan races, hierarchically aligned. Why National Socialism and Fascism were not explicitly called “white” or “Aryan” nationalism is simply because there was no demographic crisis of white peoples in their indigenous homelands or of their genetic stock worldwide: the first tier of race. At least back in the thirties one had, more or less, only the spiritual problem to worry about.
In Evolas words, from “Doctrine of Awakening”:
“We have to remember that behind the various caprices of modern historical theories, and as a more profound and primordial reality,
there stands the unity of blood and spirit of the white races who created the greatest civilizations both of the East and West, the Iranian and Hindu as well as the ancient Greek and Roman and the Germanic.”
To say that there was no support for “anything calling itself “White Nationalism”” may be true but slightly misleading. Equally one could make the same argument for National socialism and Fascism, both modern themes influenced by masonic ideas yet stood as the last bridge-stone since the middle ages to surpass modernism with the right direction. Both of these regimes Evola worked with, had they not been crushed by two daemonic hyper-material superpowers, it is only our speculation what may have come of them.
Wouldn’t there be a difference between arguing for a “white” Imperium & prudentially believing that certain ethno-states be maintained in relative genetic stability, provided that the entity was not allowed to exalt itself to a transcendental level, or expand at the expense of other, similar entities? Or is that an inevitable betrayal of principle, as well? Is the distinction moot at this point?