Hello,
Would it make sense to stop applying to a given author's position
the word precisely chosen by him to define his position? Of course,
it wouldn't. Now, Evola defined his position by the term "racism"
("razzismo"), and, when he chose it, there are strong grounds for
thinking that he knew what he was doing, especially since he strove
to arrive at a more accurate and less abstract definition of it than
those given by German, French, and Italian racialists.
"Razzismo" is a recurring word in Evola's vocabulary in his books on
the question of race, in 'Indirizzi per una educazione razziale' as
in the others. According to the context, it was translated by us
either by "racial theory"or, simply, by "racism", in spite of the
fact that the term "racism" has assumed more and more pejorative
connotations since the end of WW2, since the military defeat of the
countries in which it was seen, instead, as a positive concept and
the only winner of this war, a people which, to quote Evola, may be,
in some respects, the most racist people, namely the Jew, having
understood that the hostilities were still going on on other planes,
such as that of the language, has seen to it, through the media and
the education system of Western countries he has taken control of,
that the meaning of words are changed, or ar least, so to speak,
jammed. Racism is now commonly defined as an attitude of systematic
hostility from one human group towards another. However, some
dictionaries still offer a definition of "racism" which is closer to
the original one: "an ideology which affirms the superiority of a
racial group over another, advocating, for instance, segregation"
(Larousse, 1976) (those who wrote this dictionnary couldn't be
expected to let their readers know that Apartheid was the regime
peculiar to the Jewish colony of South Africa) ; "an ideology based
on the belief that there is a hierarchy between human groups"
(Larousse, 1993) (you will have noticed that, here, the word "race"
doesn't even appear: by getting rid of words, some people may think
that they will get rid of the living reality it represents).
"And if Fascist Italy, among the various Western nations, Evola said
in 'Il Problema della supremazia della razza bianca' (Lo Stato,
1936), is the one which first (...) wished for a reaction against
the degeneration of the materialist, democratic and capitalist
civilisation, (...) against the League of Nations ideology, there
are grounds for thinking, without even any scintilla of chauvinistic
infatuation, that Italy will be on the front line among the forces
which will guide the future world and will restore the supremacy of
the white race". Evola's racism is simply not based on the idea that
there is a hierarchy between races; it doesn't try to show it, so
self-evident it is, it presupposes it and goes further. It is not a
point of arrival - it is a starting point. "Racism appears as a
will - which could well be called classical - of 'form', of 'limit',
of individuation" ('Sintesi di dottrina della razza'). Even to go no
further than the race of the body, it is clear that all races have
different possibilities of form, of individuation. Those differences
are qualitative. Just as, in any race, there is a hierarchy between
men, there is a hierarchy between races.
In any case, needless to say that it is not because pejorative
connotations have been grafted to the term "racism" as people were
loosing what little left they had of race that those who haven't
lost it should feel guilty about using it or even exclude it from
their vocabulary, on the contrary. In this case, they should also
stop using the word "tradition" or "hierarchy", under the pretext
that it has become a pejorative word outside 'traditionalist'
circles. We don't have the means to prevent cultural distorters from
distorting; however, let's make sure that we don't get distorted by
them and we don't get contaminated by 'guilt' and other Semitic hare-
brained ideas.
Thompkins&Cariou
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:
> Tony says "One has to wonder whether it even makes sense to
continue
> to apply the word "racism" to Evola's position."
>
> -- I agree, and have always argued against using this term in the
> translations.