To Evola, Rosenberg is by far the most authoritative and qualified
National Socialist author as far as the racial question is concerned.
In 'Il Mito del sangue', he recalls Rosenberg's attempt to establish
a 'German National Church' according to a racial world-outlook and
quotes the most significant and edifying passages of 'The Myth of the
XXth Century' in this connection. He rightly notes that Rosenberg's
views have a rather important part in the code of honour of the SS
and in the principles upheld and taught in the
Ordensburgen, "especially on the ethical plane". "But, he adds, as
far as philosophy and spirit are concerned, those who have tried to
resume seriously the idea of a new anti-Christian religion have ended
up in mere amateurish exercises". Among them, Hauer, von Reventlow,
von Ludendorff, Löpmann, as well as Bergmann, whose views Evola gives
an insight into. Now, if you look more closely at his views, what
strikes you is that they actually haven't got much to do with their
plain German-Nordic premises and that, in fact, they try to fight
Christianity and to build something new with vague impulses and a
doctrinal equipment which feel the effect of a spirit closely akin to
the Christian one, that is, of a lunar spirit.
Many questions can't find answers because they are not well set.
First, it is not about creating a 'new religion', whether anti-
Christian or not, but about coming back to the pre-Christian Aryan
cult, to the spirit in which it originates ; it is
about 'remembering' it in the Platonic sense. It ensues from this
that it is absurd to try to de-christianise a people without having
previously extirpate from it everything which, on the plane of the
race of the soul and on that of the spirit, bears the mark of
Christian influences ; thus, to extirpate, not dogmas, in which, as a
French historian of the Middle Ages once pointed out, the people was
never interested, but the formative ideas and the influences which
have been acting on the people to the point of christianising them,
not according to the 'letter', but in 'spirit', without them being
conscious of it, and without them realising either that, despite
their no longer being practising Christians, their thought, their
actions and their attitudes are still greatly determined by Christian
moral, a moral which, besides being in stark contradiction and being
incompatible with Nordic-Aryan ethic, is obviously hostile to it.
This 'slaves moral' is in all likelihood that aspect to which Evola
refers in the excerpt you quoted from 'Against the Neo-Pagans'. Now,
if you rid Christianity of it, what's left of Christianity? No matter
how you look at things, the worthy elements in Christianity are those
which were infused into it in the Middle Ages, and which refer more
or less directly to that 'older heritage' Evola alludes to, that is,
the Nordic one. At this point, a question springs to mind : in a
occupied Europe where the few men who are still standing among the
ruins have no influence whatsoever on politics and where political
schemers are mere lackeys of high finance and of what's behind it,
what's the point of trying to re-nordicise the Church when everything
we need we can find in the pre-Christian Aryan cults and, what's
more, the Church has returned to its first love and is, more than
ever, a company with a humanitarian facade ? Assuming that, as was
more or less the case in pre-War Germany and in pre-war Italy,
European forces manage to come to power again and to neutralise the
influence of the 'cultural distorter', would it be worth ?
This neutralisation would require the implementation of measures far
more radical and drastic than those taken by the National-Socialist
leadership and by Fascist authorities at their time, closely akin to
the steps taken, for instance, by Charlemagne against the heathen
resistance to the hegemonistic will of the Church in the Early Middle
Ages ; to the Stalinian 'purges' in the XIXth century ; or, on a far
more positive note from an Aryan standpoint, to the policy conducted,
by Augustus as soon as he came to power, by Vlad Dracul II throughout
his life, towards the corrupt and unworthy members of the aristocracy
of their respective land. Before being able to re-educate, if not a
whole people whose spirit, mind, body and soul has been distorted to
such an extent that it can no longer be detoxicated and rectified
from the inside, at least some of their offspring, so as, as stressed
by Evola in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', to allow them to
develop organically in them a sound instinct likely to tell them
unequivocally what' is 'positive' and what is 'negative' for them as
Aryans, it is absolutely necessary to carry out a direct and violent
action on them. Rather than to 'surgery' , we'd compare it to
a 'lightning strike' policy, a 'Blitz' policy.
A process of re-aryanisation of the very few Europeans who can still
be re-aryanised would take time, of course, but the implementation of
each of the measures to be taken in the course of that process would
have to be lightning, for it to be successful.
In any case, once again, let's not put the cart before the horse. A
re-aryanisation would be based on racial and manly grounds or there
wouldn't be any re-aryanisation at all.
What makes you think that "a directly and violently 'surgical'
approach to what is understood as mainstream Christianity would most
likely be psychologically untenable and unhealthy for the broad
generality of modern Indoeuropeans"? First, don't you find the
current situation already "psychologically untenable" for any average
European who has to face daily the anti-European zoological racist
policy of the lackeys of the 'cultural distorter' who are in office?
What can be more unhealthy in every respect for any sound man than to
have to live in a gynaeco-democracy? Then, since most Europeans are
no longer practising Christians de facto, why on earth would that
plebs mind being no longer Christian de jure ?
In a European State worth of the name, any mother would be allowed to
go to church with her young son every Sunday, whether to a Catholic
Church, to a Protestant church or to an Orthodox church, if it
pleased her. What she would be absolutely prevented from doing, by
precise legal measures, would be to become, for instance, a teacher
and, therefore, to try hard, with all the energies of resentment and
of hatred, to turn young boys into young girls by inculcating them,
by means of so-called educational methods greatly derived from psycho-
analysis, in feminine values previously distorted by effeminate males
and homosexuals, that is to say, in internationalist nonsense. The
author of 'Mein Kampf' considered the religious phenomenon in its
lunar manifestations as secondary towards the racial element and,
aware of the divisions which Christianity had caused among European
peoples in the past, did his best not to make again the same mistakes
as his predecessors and not to let himself be seduced by the sirens'
call : behind Charles IX's persecutions of the Protestants, there was
Catherine of Medicis ; behind Louis XIV's persecutions of the
Protestants, there was the Marchioness of Maintenon ; behind the
Hundred-Years war, there was the divorce of Alienor of Aquitaine,
great priestess of courtly love, of the 'religion of love' and idol
of modern 'feminists', with Louis VII ; and so on. Maybe for the
first time in 1500 years, a man rose in Europe to make it clear that
religion could no longer be allowed to be a factor of conflict within
the national community and of weakening of the State, while
tolerating, in a genuine Roman spirit, any 'European' religion on the
German soil as long as it didn't try to undermine the State and
the 'Gemeinschaft'. Evola doesn't seem to have been sensitive to that
Roman aspect of his character.
Ironically enough, and at the risk of shocking a
few 'traditionalists' and even a few 'evolianists', it is clear that,
in some respects, Trotsky was not wrong in calling 'religion' "the
opium of the people". As a member of the Jewish community, he simply
didn't realise how right he was and would have been better inspired
to call it the 'opium of the plebs'.
Having said this, the main question about the relations between
modern heathenism and Christianity, which is at the heart of your
considerations and which has not always been well formulated, remains
to be asked.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "brightimperator"
<brightimperator@...> wrote:
>
> I praise your excellent, clear-sighted, no-nonsense and erudite
> analysis, and I agree in substance with all of your points. Of
> course, I merely state for purposes of reflection certain
stimulating
> theories and theses, without myself subscribing necessarily to each
> and every one of them. Yet what Rosenberg, Otto Rahn, and others
were
> aiming after was a 'superrational myth' for the Germanic and
kindred
> Aryo-Nordic peoples of a forgotten, non-Jehovic, Indo-Aryan
> Christianity unjustly suppressed by the Judaized Roman Church.
> Certain of the conclusions arrived at by these individuals are not
> totally without insight, and, as I tried to show, even a
philosopher
> of the quality of Schopenhauer pursued similar lines of thought.
This
> non-Judaized Christianity ideally would be the first stage in
> breaking down the Hebraic encrustation covering contemporary
Western
> civilization. A directly and violently 'surgical' approach to what
is
> understood as mainstream Christianity would most likely be
> psychologically untenable and unhealthy for the broad generality of
> modern Indoeuropeans and counterproductive on the part of potential
> leaders, if you understand what I mean. Evola himself refers to the
> mysterious biblical priest-king Melchizedek and this figure's
> connection to the Ghibellines to mythopoetically highlight the pre-
> judaic and possibly aryan traces present in Christianity. Doesn't
> Evola also say in "Against the Neo-Pagans":
>
> "It is worth repeating that the principal thing is not the
rejection
> of Christianity: it is not a matter of showing the same
> incomprehension towards it as Christianity itself has shown, and
> largely continues to show, towards ancient paganism. It would
rather
> be a matter of completing Christianity by means of a higher and an
> older heritage, eliminating some of its aspects and emphasizing
> other, more important ones, in which this faith does not
necessarily
> contradict the universal concepts of pre-Christian spirituality."
>
> Thus, the process of religious re-Aryanization would have to go
> through intermediate phases before the ultimate return to the 'Ur-
> Aryan' origins. With this in mind, the theses of Schopenhauer,
> Wagner, Chamberlain, Rosenberg, Rahn, Jung, etc. on a purified Indo-
> Aryan Christianity contain potentially positive possibilities and
> lines of development.
>