References to Mussolini are frequent in Evola's works on politics and
race, and especially in 'The Elements of Racial Education'. Whether
laudatory or critical, they are always most objective and lucid in
judging his ideas and his actions. However, as Gianfranco de Turris,
the president of Fondazione Evola, has pointed out, it seems that the
same cannot be said of the judgment he expressed of Mussolini's
knowledge and understanding of his work : "Conversations were
conducted between Mussolini and de Begnac in order to gather material
for an official biography of the Duce, at irregular intervals over
the ten years between 1934 and 1943 (...) Mussolini speaks
surprisingly often of Evola, in such a tone, and with such precise
references, to his person, his works, his ideas, their meetings, and
their conversations, that (his account) does not seem to have been
improvised or invented, and it therefore casts some doubt on Evola's
assertion, in 'Il Cammino del Cinabro', that he never consorted with,
or even knew, the leader of Fascism until 1941.
"Well, one of the most unexpected assertions of Mussolini (...) is
the following : "Contrary to what is generally thought, I was not at
all bothered by the opposition of Doctor (sic) Julius Evola, a few
months before the Conciliation, to the Concordat of Peace between the
Holy See and Italy. In fact, Doctor Evola's (sic) opposition was not
specifically to the relations between Italy and the Holy See, but
concerned what he considered to be the long-term incompatibility
between Roman tradition and Catholic tradition. According to his
view, once Fascism is identified with the survival of the Roman
tradition, one must necessarily consider it the adversary of any
vision of history of the universalist order".
"This interpretation of Evola's ideas and intentions," Gianfranco di
Turris goes on, "is completely correct." (Although, in fact, Evola
would have spoken of 'internationalist order' rather
than 'universalist order' ; concerning the precise distinction
between these two concepts, see 'Three Aspects of the Jewish
Problem'. -ed.) Di Turris concludes : "This implies that Mussolini
had read Evola's articles and/or the book, 'Heathen Imperialism',
whereas its author thought the contrary ('Certainly, Mussolini did
not read the book : someone must have given him a superficial and
tendentious survey of it.' - Evola.) Obviously, in his pragmatic
realism, the Duce saw this radical stand as a corrective to the
excessive confessional impulses of some Fascist circles. This leads
us to ponder again what exactly the relations between Evola, Fascism
and its leader were."
Thompkins&Cariou
|