Evola concludes that in principle, the Fascist doctrine of the state is traditional. Evola’s next task is twofold: (1) to draw out the full implications of that doctrine and (2) to point out its deviations. To recap, the state, in his view, is preeminent to both the people and the nation. He then contrasts the idea of the state to “society”, which represents the physical and vegetative side of the community. Doctrines based on society as such include theories of natural rights, contract theory, and democracy, including the people’s democracies of the communists.
Opposed to this social ideal, there is the political ideal which involves transcendence, rather than the materialistic and hedonistic concerns of the society. The problem of transcendence was never satisfactorily solved by Fascism.
The Bovine State
Evola points out that the “impulse to self-transcendence can be repressed and silenced, but never completely eliminated, except in the extreme case of systematically degrading people into a bovine state.” I don’t think he realized how close that bovine state was. He pointed to the “blind, anarchic, and destructive” revolts of the youth as a sign of the ennui induced by the prosperity and comfort of the consumer society. But those days are long gone as these same youths are now the possessors of power. Yet, they have maintained the revolt as their ideal and have persisted in overturning one by one every previous customary and traditional notion of order.
The destructive aspects of the constant revolt are not immediately apparent, or else they are hidden and kept out of public discourse. Furthermore, it coopts that impulse among the young, since there is nothing left for the young, since revolt is public policy. When post-menopausal women are getting tattoos, nipple rings, and bikini waxes, the youth are forced to take things to absurd levels. Blind, anarchic, and destructive revolts are left to the proletariat who have been shut out of the bourgeois consumer culture and resent it. By the logic of revolt, such public behavior is beyond criticism.
The Mystique of Power
Similar to Guido De Giorgio, Evola points out that “in traditional societies, there has always existed a certain liturgy or mystique of power and sovereignty that was an integral part of the system and which furnished a solution to the problem we have been addressing [i.e., the urge for transcendence],” but here a divergence appears. The natural objection is that the system takes on a religious significance, so that a secular state replaces religion, the normal object of transcendence. Evola denies the dualist notion that the state is secular; we can point out that idea is a modern notion. However, Evola traces its source to Jesus’ command to render unto Caesar, but would preclude the existence of any such idea of the state in Europe since Constantine.
So, the state depends on a spiritual charism and is thus more than a merely administrative and social system. This brings Evola to the relationship between Catholicism, the majority religion of the Italian people, and the Fascist state. Unfortunately, Evola’s distorted understanding of the proper roles of the Priests and the Warriors colors his analysis. He praises Mussolini’s occasional references to the Roman ideal, which was necessarily vague. De Giorgio’s larger view does not have such a problem since it has a place for the Priests in the traditional system, as the upholders of that tradition and the source of the charism of the state.
Clearly, if the existence of the Fascist state had depended on the replacement of the common religion with one that could only be partial, incomplete, and mostly forgotten, it would have been stillborn. The state, despite his claim, is not ultimate and does not have infinite capacity to form the people. Even by his logic, for the state to have a charism, then the religion necessarily precedes the state, ontologically and temporally. Nevertheless, Evola somehow has to demonstrate the spiritual foundation of the state as opposed to the secular and desacralized interpretations.
Nationalism
One of the shortcomings, Evola says, is that the Fascist doctrine did not distinguish fully between nationalism and Tradition in the higher sense. He described the former as “mediocre conservatism”, bourgeois, priggish, superficially Catholic, and conformist. As the nationalist elements were absorbed into Fascism, its ideals became blurred, and “nationalism” became identified as the “Right”. Evola traces the idea of nationalism to the principles of 1789, which were opposed to the traditional structures of the Middle Ages.
Curiously, this syncretism of nationalism, with a lip-service commitment to tradition, has become the hallmark of the so-called right in the USA. Neo-conservatism is often associated with the Jewish element, but that ignores the even stronger Catholic influence, or actually neo-Catholic, since their tradition does not reach beyond Vatican II. This nationalism accepts a large part of the modern liberal state, although it promotes the roles of the bourgeois money powers over the state’s more socialist tendencies. Beyond that, the nationalist right supports a vigorous foreign policy, even to the point of being jingoist. Nevertheless, nationalism is not an exclusively rightist tendency, since even the liberal state is nationalist. Although the USA has a federal rather than a national government, there has been an increasing tendency towards the latter. At its inception, a person regarded himself as the citizen of one of the states and owed his allegiance to it, but now schoolchildren pledge their allegiance to the federal government. This nationalist feeling is demonstrated in its holidays, which are mostly associated with wars and political figures; in pre-nationalist Europe, holidays used to be associated with religious celebrations.
Obviously, the emphasis on nationalism was unacceptable to Evola, since he regarded the state as superior to the nation. I’ll leave it to readers how this may apply to such contemporary movements like “white nationalism” and various “identitarian” initiatives, which often claim some sort of affiliation with Evola. The latter are really nationalist movements since their source of identity is a common nation, in a zoological sense. Their fault is not the desire for a unity, but the belief that that unity will arise from below, democratically as it were, rather than from above, as a spiritual ideal and the state as the organizing principle. As for “white nationalism”, it is simply an oxymoron.
“One thing I’ve learned about initiation recently is that – people keep looking for all these little groups of hoaxsters for the “secret knowledge” that can enlighten them but they’re missing the point – initiation is not a ceremony, initiation is the spiritual change in the interior of a person.”
Amen. I can only pray that these people reach the lowest lows by their futile search and then find ‘The way, the Truth and the Life.”
“Only I can change myself.”
Bishop Anthony Bloom in “Beginning to Pray” writes “But if the words we use (in prayer) are not made real by the way we live, they will still be meaningless and lead nowhere, because they will be like a bow that we cannot shoot for lack of a string. It is absolutely pointless to ask God for something which we ourselves are not prepared to do. If we say ‘O God, make me free from this temptation’ while at the same time seeking every possible way of falling to just such a temptation, hoping now that God is in control, that He will get us out of it, then we do not stand much chance. God gives us strength but we must use it. When, in our prayers, we ask God to give us strength to do something in His name, we are not asking Him to do it instead of us because we are too feeble to be willing to do it for ourselves.” (64)
Also…
“I think it is very important to realize that God will act in this way. He will not be crucified for you every day. There is a moment when you must take up your own cross. We must each take up our own cross, and when we ask something in our prayers, we undertake by implication to do it with all our strength, all our intelligence and all the enthusiasm we can put in our actions, and with all the courage and energy we have. In addition, we must do it with all the power which God will give us. If we do not do this, we are wasting our time praying.” (65)
This is what a lot in the modern world seem to miss. A lot of of work goes into your path, no matter what caste you are apart, you have to do an incredible amount of hard work on your own to achieve. “For many are called but few are chosen.” You also have to pick yourself up after every fall. As the desert fathers say “For a man heads to his judgment either fallen or getting back up again.”
Personally if someone can find enlightenment through a non-Christian path as Guenon did, it is for Christ and nor for me to judge. I simply choose not to apostasise from the religion I was raised in as a child, I have little but the little I do have in the form of the beliefs of my ancestors are worthwhile enough for me to keep. I’ve studied other paths though, Shia Islam, Korean Buddhism, Thelema, but found they were foreign to my soul.
I first got into Nazbol as a punk, although now he’s moved away from that, for a while Dugin – when associated with Limonov (read Sedgwick’s book for the history) was appealing to the punk-Crowley set for recruits so that’s where they hooked me. Thanks be to God though I’ve moved far away from that way of life.
One thing I’ve learned about initiation recently is that – people keep looking for all these little groups of hoaxsters for the “secret knowledge” that can enlighten them but they’re missing the point – initiation is not a ceremony, initiation is the spiritual change in the interior of a person. Only I can change myself. A guru can help but at the end I have to do the work – he can’t do it for me. In that sense all initiations are self initiations. It helps to have a teacher obviously but since I can’t find one , that’s no excuse not to start working by myself. Now I’ve focusing my search for books of spiritual exercises I can do to raise my consciousness.
Ash, you keep mentioning “anthropomorphic theism” as though you know what you are talking about. I think Gornahoor has dealt with that issue sufficiently, but if you have some particular objection, the comment belongs to the relevant post. If that is still not enough, check out Edward Feser’s site and ask mention your “philosophical issues” there. You will be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
In my view, TIA is a site which provides some good resources but could be so much more. I thought when reading them at first that it was a satirical site mocking the “backward Christian”. The site seems to be pure reaction in many ways. It is one thing to understand and promote the Catholic social teaching on modern issues, it is quite another to be shocked and outraged at rock music and bikinis as if they are a new fad and haven’t been around a good 60 years or so. In some ways they read like a Catholic Jack Chick comic, focusing on the decline of handwriting and titles like Mr./Mrs, not really mentioning that for most of Catholic civilization neither of these things existed in their current form. Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh (and off topic from the post) but I really do think that ultimately the group undermines its own project.
Most certainly some interesting information in that article. Guenon himself was of course acquainted with Masonry in his younger years so we should of course leave open the possibility for maturing beyond petty “spiritism”, but there is cause to be weary. I take Dugin for what he is: a man who has certainly been influenced by authors of Tradition but is certainly no initiate himself. As such there is good and bad to be found in him. I have neither a natbol background (although I have read some of their writings online) nor do I speak Russian, so perhaps you can judge better than I what he is at his core. I’ve heard the remarks that he does not take well to dissent before…a true Guru knows that the truth can stand any test, and a teacher who does not allow for such likely has something to hide. Time will tell, I suppose. I studied Catholicism for a long time as a potential neophyte, starting when I read Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home and eventually becoming interested in more traditional authors like Lefebrve, before moving on to Orthodoxy and eventually away from the Christian tradition. For my part, although Christian symbolism and teaching still are great sources of learning for me, it is my philosophical issues with anthropomorphic theism keeping me from it as an exoteric tradition.
The Plinio quote comes from http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/storia/gb20.htm
“A ‘cocktail’ of evolutionism, neo-positivism, scientism, sexual revolution and clearly Masonic doctrines in an ‘Indo-European’ package: in the first place in order to subtly corrupt those young people who escape from social-communist and progressive conformity, favouring their transformation into ‘anonymous revolutionaries’; in the second place, in order to prepare the pollution of any anti-Communist reaction and to try to satisfy its inevitable spiritual needs in an anti-Catholic and anti-metaphysical sense, in view of a dark and fatal neo-pagan mirage”.
The whole article I linked to is worth reading as it shows the Masonic connections of many important NR leaders such as Christian Bouchet (who is very close to Dugin). More and more I am convinced that Dugin-ism, or a successor ideology that will be derived from Dugin’s work, is the Counter-Tradition Guenon said would come in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times – a communism mixed with false metaphysics .
I used to be a national bolshevik so I understand what you’re saying Ash, if it hadn’t been for Dugin I’d have never read Evola or Guenon – Dugin being the bridge for me from Marx and Lenin to Tradition. But for others Dugin has become a god-like figure who can never be questioned………
I like TIA alot, I find it defending true mediaeval Catholicism, something that is a very rare fact in this world. Maybe they aren’t 100 % correct all the time but who is ? I’d go to Mass with them if I knew them personally.
For the sake of honesty though my thoughts are moving more towards Plinio/Lefebrve/Williamson/ and away from Evola, Guenon, those types, not that I disagree with Guenon or Evola so much as I just think traditional Catholicism is more on the money and less screwed up than traditionalism. I mean I’m not a liberal and if I’m going to be a Catholic which is what God chose for me to be, I’m not going to say choice of religion is meaningless and can be switched.
JA, I think false flag may be giving a bit too much credit. The Nouvelle Droite and the Identitarian movements which are following it aren’t “false flags” but legitimate expressions of dissent, in my view. That said, they are in dire need of education in proper doctrine. As students of Tradition, I think it would be far more worthwhile to focus on this, at least for the time being. This is how I myself came to return to metaphysical teaching after a journey through the ideas of the Nouvelle Droite and its associates. In time, we may see elements of the Anti-Tradition…I personally have my own ideas about who and what parts of these rightist movements are such manifestations. But only in time. For every Varg Vikernes, runic/chaos magician, and racial ultranationalist, there are many who have found their course their because of their alienation with the order around them and may yet be open to the truth. Could you link to Dr. Plinio’s comments? I would be interested in seeing them in full.
As an aside, do you find TIA to be a useful website? I used to read it more myself but I was always rather put off by its rather extreme dogmatism. Forget more Catholic than the Pope, I got the sense sometimes of more Catholic than the SSPX. I’m no bleeding heart myself and more judgmental sometimes than I should be, but an article entitled “Four Ways to Discern A Man’s Soul From His Appearance” which marks his laugh and walking speed as signs? I know body language tells a lot, but come on now.
I find very interesting Fabre d’Olivet’s point about mediaeval Japan in his history book that it was a deviation – a revolt of the warriors – from the priest-ruled prior era. The Emperor of Japan was and is actually more akin to the Pope in our culture than to a king. The Shogun would be more like the Emperor.
I also ind it puzzling how writers such as Dugin, taking their cue from Evola’s regal supremacy promote Orthodox Christianity in Byzantium and Russia as embodying the Traditional ideal of church-state relations when as I mentioned before de Maistre, Soloviev and others show how the post-Photius eastern church was the same as protestant churches like the Anglicans.
This speech shows us the way to a good society, I believe http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A04CharlemagneSpeech.html
PS – this is tangental but were you aware of what Dr Plinio had said about the Nouvelle Droite ? his opinion is that the new right is a false flag resistance created by the revolution, to deceive and give a false hope to those who are of anti-communist mind, and convert them to an anti-Christian philosophy. I agree with Plinio because I find that especially with Dugin’s people, it starts of talking bout order, hierarchy, tradition, but when you get in deep there’s Crowley, chaos magic, nihilism and communism.
I believe De Giorgio is very clear that the Priests are the upholders of the deposit of Tradition and the Warriors and, a fortiori the Capo, have the duty of protecting them in that task. Evola’s notion is indeed vague, and it stems from his misconceptions as revealed by Coomaraswamy and Guenon. I don’t think he ever was clear about his spiritual vision, particularly as it might apply to the contemplative life, as he was always more focused on the way of action as a spiritual path. Certainly, the heroic path and the discipline associated with loyalty, etc., can lead to a certain transcendence, but that cannot be the whole story. In particular, they can’t pass on the tradition because they lack the discursive knowledge of it, as we pointed out a couple of months ago. The role of the priests in Evola’s conception was like an appendix, i.e., a vestigial organ with no real purpose.
The question about deGiorgio I was really to get at but failed to enunciate properly is – does the Capo have the power to determine spiritual dogmas ? In other words can Mussolini decide we should go to Mass on Monday instead of Sunday ?
The problem I’m having in understanding Evola’s idea of the absolute state and his opposition to the Catholic Church as a separate entity not part of the state is – how is his idea any different from England or any other Protestant state where the king rules over the church ?