There was no racial consciousness in the Middle Ages, and they could
not be any, for the reasons we have mentioned in our previous message.
Your second rhetorical question is therefore absurd. What does not
exist does not have to be accounted for.
Those who are looking, whether desperately or not, for a racial
consciousness in the Middle Ages are like those who think they can
make a tree grow in the desert. They find themselves in the desert,
they plant a seed, they water it, and, of course, in atmospheric
conditions such as the desert's, it does not take long before this
nonexistent tree seems to appear. It is not magic. It's just
self-suggestion.
Some time ago, we came in touch with a scholar "looking at the
development of racial consciousness in medieval European literature
and the importance of the Middle Ages to modern notions of race", a
scholar who turned out to have graduated from one of the most
prestigious American universities, and, no matter how impressed we
were by her C.V., we still managed to ask her to be so kind as to
elaborate on her claim. We would have rather ordered her two books,
but, admittedly, their title is not very engaging, in this respect :
'Christian, Saracen and Genre in Medieval French Literature', 'Race,
Class, and Gender in "Medieval" Cinema'. Nor is an article called 'Are
Pygmies Men? Early Modern Travelers and the Medieval Discourse on
Humanness'.
She was however kind enough to answer :
"I guess I'm not sure what had changed by 1600 or 1700 or 1800 in
terms of the religious predominance of Christianity in Europe and the
West, and yet I think all [who?] would agree that a racial
consciousness did indeed form. If you're asking [we are certainly not]
how Christianity can reconcile itself with racism, that's a great
question and it puzzles me, too. Historically, one of the ways it did
was to claim that other races did not descend from Adam (thus they
were outside the universal brotherhood of Christians). Augustine
addresses this thesis early on in the City of God, but he does not
provide a definitive answer."
Leaving aside that, as most scholars, and, unfortunately, as most
people, she mistakes religion with race, her historical claim is false.
'The City of God' does indeed contain two chapters indicating a debate
between Christians and heathens over human origins, a debate which is
closely linked to the Pre-Adamite hypothesis. But, as the title of
these two chapters indicate, Augustine clearly believed heathen
beliefs on the history and chronology of the world and the human race
to be completely absurd and incompatible with the revealed truth that
the world is not yet six thousand years old. Augustine's position on
this matter was supported by most rabbis and the church fathers, who
generally dismissed views on the antiquity of the world as myths and
fables not requiring any considered refutation.
Other scholars are seeing things. Sheila E. Mc Ginn
(http://www.jcu.edu/Bible/BibleIntroReadings/OriginalSin.htm) is one
of them, when she claims that "'Humani Generis' deliberately leaves
open the possibility of polygenism for theological inquiry."
It does not. 'Humani Generis' clearly states that Catholics may not
believe in polygenism.
The American so-called far-right is overwhelmingly Christian, while
claiming to be racist. It thus needs alibis.
> >
> > To what extent, then, can we call Aryan a Europe that was Christian
> > for nearly two millennia? Would we be able to draw from that that
> > every European who, to this day, consciously embraced the Christian
> > faith was therefore, in essence, Semitic? In this case, how would we
> > account for the racial consciousness that was present within Christian
> > Europe for all that period? To say that racial consciousness was
> > indirectly proportional to one's adherence to Christianity, such that,
> > the more one was a convinced Christian (whether Protestant or
> > Catholic), the less racially conscious he was, would be preposterous.
> > The same could be said about accusing the Germans who, by the closure
> > of the Second World War, fled to the Islamic world where many of them
> > converted to Islam, among whom was Johan von Leers and Heiden Ludwig,
> > among many others ('Liste des nazis ayant fuit dans les pays arabes':
> > http://aval31.free.fr/texteracines/1967.htm). One could also mention
> > cases such as that of Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, well-known for his work
> > on the psycho-physical aspect of race, on which Evola drew a great
> > deal for the elaboration of his tripartite theory of race, and who,
> > irrespectively of the political situation in Europe, converted to
> > Islam and lived for a time among the Bedouins? How, finally, and to
> > move up in history a bit, would we account for Prince Charles of
> > Wales, who, if he hasn't yet converted to Islam, surely seems to be on
> > his way there? (see: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119) On this
> > point, it would be interesting to see in a few years the United
> > Kingdom under a monarch who is a self-proclaimed Traditionalist and,
> > possibly, a Muslim.
> >
> > --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
> > <evola_as_he_is@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You look at things from a religious angle. As far as we are
concerned,
> > > it is from a racial point of view that we look at them. From that
> > > point of view, the fact that some Whites convert to an Abrahamic
> > > religion or that some Jews convert to Islam or to Christianity is
> > > irrelevant. For, in the process, they do not change race, do they?
> > >
> > > From the Buddhist standpoint from which J. Evola looked at the
> > > question of birth within a racial context, it can be inferred
that the
> > > race of the body of these individuals, that is, the racial form in
> > > which they incarnate, does not correspond to the racial substance of
> > > 'their' soul and of 'their' spirit, and that, by converting,
that is,
> > > by adhering to a forma mentis which is not that of the race in which
> > > they were born, they only go back to their true origins.
> > >
> > > --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, andy@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, evola_as_he_is wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It is sufficient to be born a Jew to be a Jew ; no 'second
> birth' is
> > > > > required in this case.
> > > >
> > > > Can you elaborate on this point? What about Anglos that adopted
> > > Judiasm
> > > > or Jews that reject Judiasm? I'm curious about the Evolian
view on
> > > this
> > > > matter.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is essential to understand what is meant exactly by 'dvija'
> > > > > (twice-born) in the Hindu context. At least in historical times,
> > > > > 'Upanayana' is merely the ceremony in which a guru initiates
a boy
> > > > > into one of the three twice-born castes by investing him
with the
> > > > > sacred thread, and by teaching him the Brahma-gayatri mantra,
> > > > > whereupon he becomes eligible to study the Vedas under his guru.
> > > > > 'Upanayana' does start the process of second birth, but it
> does not
> > > > > guarantee continuity in that second birth, unless one
continues to
> > > > > adhere to the principles of what is commonly called
'knowledge' in
> > > > > modern esotericist circles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still in historical times, to be 'twice-born' does not mean
at all
> > > > > what Evola understood by this, that is, a qualitative change of
> > level
> > > > > of consciousness leading to unconditioned states of being, a
> > change of
> > > > > level which, by definition, is irreversible, once reached.
> Then, how
> > > > > comes the 'Bhagavata Purana' (7.11.35) states : "If a person
> who has
> > > > > become a brahmin moves away from his brahminical duties, then he
> > is no
> > > > > more a Brahmin"? How come even members of the third caste -
> > Vaishya -
> > > > > could be 'twice-born'?
> > > > >
> > > > > As early as then, 'upayana' meant "a scheme of education framed
> > (...)
> > > > > to initiate the young men for preparing them for full
> citizenship of
> > > > > the community"
> (http://www.sanathanadharma.com/samskaras/edu1.htm),
> > > > > and 'nothing more'. We put it in quotation marks, since, then,
> > > > > citizenship still meant racial homogeneity. The Hindu
> hierarchy was
> > > > > still based on race and on racial purity. However, the (social)
> > > > > function of individuals tended to take the upper hand over their
> > > > > nature (their race in the totalising sense), while their
(social)
> > > > > function no longer corresponded to their nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, ancient Aryans still remain the only people to have
> > > > > realised that the race of the body does not necessarily
> > correspond to
> > > > > the race of the soul and to the race of the spirit, and to have
> > taken
> > > > > steps to remedy this as far as possible.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa"
<hyperborean@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I can't speak for Jews, they have their own destiny to work
out.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But doesn't the same apply to so-called "Aryans"? Again in
> Sintesi,
> > > > > Evola
> > > > >> explains that race is not simply a biological category. It
is not
> > > > > sufficient
> > > > >> to be born "white" to be an Aryan; a "second birth" is also
> > > > > required, that
> > > > >> is, a spiritual realisation of one's identity on a higher
plane.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Men, such as they are, will mate with anyone, including each
> other.
> > > > > In the
> > > > >> United States a few months back, a man was even arrested for
> having
> > > > >> intercourse with a dead deer by the side of the road.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That is why some effort at detachment from the immediacy of
> life is
> > > > >> absolutely necessary in order to understand anything at
all. Even
> > > if one
> > > > >> manages to gain some understanding on the physical plane,
without
> > > > > sufficient
> > > > >> spiritual effort, nothing positive can ever come from it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> > > > >> On Behalf Of G
> > > > >> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:55 PM
> > > > >> To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >> Subject: [SPAM][evola_as_he_is] Re: Jews and Japanese
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> How would one explain the fact that some Jews wish to remain
> > racially
> > > > >> "pure", not wanting to have a relationship/marriage with
> > > non-Jews, and
> > > > >> some having no problem having a relationship/marriage with
> > non-Jews?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is this a matter of betting on a different horse, so to speak?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >> <mailto:evola_as_he_is%40yahoogroups.com> , "Toni Ciopa"
> > > <hyperborean@>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> RE: "J. Evola never called himself a traditionalist."
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This may very well be true since "traditionalism"
represents no
> > > > > body of
> > > > >>> knowledge, nor school of thought, nor creed to believe;
hence it
> > > > >> makes no
> > > > >>> sense to call oneself a "traditionalist."
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> However, the word is one thing and reality another. In
> "Sintesi di
> > > > >> dottrina
> > > > >>> della razza", Evola writes:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> "the precise, strict, objective knowledge of the spirit of the
> > > > >> primordial
> > > > >>> traditions must be the decisive factor" (that is, in the
> > > discussion of
> > > > >>> race).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It is worth quoting the section in full:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> "It is necessary to stay attentive and not fall into the
> > > > >> misunderstandings
> > > > >>> and errors that we mentioned [i.e., about neopaganism], which
> > > > >> basically only
> > > > >>> play into the hands of common enemies. In such an eventuality,
> > a man
> > > > >> must
> > > > >>> put himself on a level where doctrinal confusion is not
> > allowed in,
> > > > >> where
> > > > >>> every dilettantism and every arbitrary intellectual
exercise is
> > > > >> excluded,
> > > > >>> where every subjection to confused, passionate impulses and
> > > polemical
> > > > >>> animosities must be forcibly fought off, where, finally and
> above
> > > > >> all, only
> > > > >>> the precise, strict, objective knowledge of the spirit of the
> > > > > primordial
> > > > >>> traditions must be the decisive factor." (p 137-138)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Unfortunately, Revilo P. Oliver is a neopagan and not at that
> > level.
> > > > >> Caveat
> > > > >>> emptor.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>