That's right. This confusion between the 'irrational' and the 'supra-
rational' characterises National-Bolshevik thought, all its mistakes
are likely to derive from it. As far as we are concerned, these are
more than just 'mistakes' : signs of the times, and, beyond this,
suggestions spread skilfully in certain circles by the forces of
subversion in the context of the occult war.
In 'Unknown Sources', dr Hakl quoted an author for whom "some
esoteric doctrines, such as that of the cancellation of the I, can
easily be interpreted along dehumanising lines". Evola would not have
disagreed. Generally speaking, "(...) the technical conditions, as we
may call them, needed to achieve any positive success in the
direction of "evil" are not different in kind from those needed, for
example, to attain sainthood" ('The Doctrine of Awakening')
In particular, Evola stressed that, "In Bolshevism, a reasoned
method, and a precise action which marshals all means and sticks at
nothing, apply themselves to freeing the individual from his 'I', and
from his illusion of the 'I'. This is analogous to an ascesis, or to
a general catharsis, such as would produce a return to the principle
of absolute reality and the most determined impersonality, but
diabolically inverted, leading not upwards but downwards, not towards
the supra-human but towards the sub-human, not towards what is
organic but towards what is mechanical, not towards spiritual
liberation but towards social slavery." ('Sulle premesse di
un "antibolscevismo positivo', La Vita Italiana, January 1937). This
was clearly foreseen by Dostoyevsky.
Some people may object that Bolshevism was/is not an esoteric
doctrine. We refer them to Dugin's essay on 'Cosmism', which may
allow them to realise that Bolshevism was/is suffused with
materialist interpretations of esoteric doctrines, and, thus, that it
was, in some respects, a parody of the latter.
Other people, especially National-Bolsheviks, may object, sincerely
for some of them, that Bolshevism and National-Bolshevism are not the
same thing. We can only refer them to the considerations brought
forward by Evola on the Communist concept of Nation and of state.
Besides, to quote a French expert of the history and of the ideas of
the National-Bolshevik movement, even though it may seem exaggerate
to state that National-Bolshevism has constituted the official
ideology of the USSR, it cannot be denied that many ideological,
military and even ecclesiastical circles have been deeply influenced
by its doctrine. "National-Bolshevism, understood as a
nationalisation of communist ideology, asserts the substantial
continuity between Russia and the Soviet Union, at least after the
defeat of internationalist forces (represented mainly by Trotsky,
Zinoviev, etc.), and constitutes an intellectual phenomenon which has
to be taken in consideration to understand the political and
ideological monster represented nowadays by the alliance between
Communists and Nationalists in an antidemocratic and anti-Western
perspective". It is interesting to note that this scholar, who
doesn't have any sympathy either for nationalism or for National-
Bolshevism, considers their alliance as a "monster" from an
ideological standpoint. In the early 1990's, people could be seen
brandishing portrays of the Tsar, pictures of Stalin and of Lenin,
and icons, any old now, in the demonstrations which took place in the
streets of the main Russian cities. Even in science-fiction movies,
you don't see French people brandishing enthusiastically portrays of
General de Gaulle and portrays of General Pétain, any old now, in the
middle of the same demonstration in Paris. In 1933 Germany,
the 'browns' did not ally with the 'reds' ; most 'reds' joined,
spontaneously in many cases, the 'browns'.
This allows us to bring to light another mistake of National-
Bolshevism (and of Eurasianism), based on the slightly presumptuous
assumption that what is possible in Russia, that is, for example,
a "red-brown" alliance, is possible anywhere else, and not only
possible, but desirable. On this basis, basically, the situation
could be turned around : just as National-Bolsheviks and Eurasianists
criticise the West for trying to 'westernise' Russia, if a true and
consistent European looked at things from his own standpoint, he
could criticise them for wanting to 'russify' the West ; besides, he
could make them notice that the West which tried to 'westernise'
Russia from the late eighteenth century by means of philosophical and
cultural schemes based on the ideology of the Enlightenment was
already a semiticised West, that their criticism of a West which they
don't see as semiticised might well be a by-product of 'Enlightened
Russia' without them being aware of it, and, finally, that the forces
which are behind this attempt to 'russify' the West have nothing in
common with the Nordic forces which shaped Russia in the early Middle
Ages. A true consistent European has nothing against the fact that
National-Bolshevism and Eurasianism want to model the whole world on
their own criteria, far from it ; nor does he have anything against
the fact that Dugin thinks that the Nordic man originates in the
Siberian steppes, if this can make Eurasianists feel better : any
people should assert itself. Yet, any true consistent European should
oppose this model by any means and with all his might, in the name of
a Nordic/ Prussian-Roman world-outlook and tradition.
What is it that you find exceptionally interesting in 'From Sacred
Geography to Geopolitics'? This book deals a lot with geopolitics,
not much with sacred geography ; the concept of 'sacred geography'
seems to be used as a pretext for the expounding of geopolitical
views and, in any case, doesn't have much to do with what we know of
this traditional science through the work of René Guénon and other
authors. It seems to us that those views are greatly influenced by
the Marxist environment theory as well as by H.P. Blavatsky
theosophist 'racial' theory. Hence statements such as : "Northern
Tradition and its original population, "nordic autochtones" since a
long time do not represent any more a concrete historical-
geographical reality. By common judgement, even the last remains of
this primordial culture have disappeared from physical reality
already some millennia ago". From which it follows, from an
historicist perspective, that it is useless to try to resuscitate it.
Needless to say that this is in stark contrast with Evola's doctrine
of race. Not to mention that, as most of Dugin's views based
on "common judgement", the one according to which "the last remains
of this primordial culture have disappeared from physical reality
already some millennia ago" is more than questionable : from the
point of view of the race of the body, the Swedish people look the
same as they were 2000 years ago.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "skyegamble89"
<skyegamble89@y...> wrote:
> It seems to me that the greatest mistake made by the
> National-Bolsheviks is
> their confusing of the "irrational" with the "supra-rational". This
> is the same
> idea that Evola explains in chapter 11 of "Men Among the Ruins"
> (Realism-
> Communism-Antibourgeoisie)- the communists are against the same
> liberal,
> bourgeois culture and values that we are, yes, but in this case, the
> formula
> "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not applicable, for several
> reasons.
> For one, while the destruction of the bourgeois notion of the
> Individual is a
> good thing viewed from the correct perspective (see "Ride the Tiger"
> chapter
> "The Dual Aspects of Anonymity"), in other words, in the name of
> something
> beyond and higher than man, the communists negate the Individual in
> the
> name of what is below him. Hence, the difference between the "supra-
> rational" and "irrational". Dugin seems to make the mistake of
> confusing the
> two in his "Metaphysics of National-Bolshevism".
>
> On the other hand, there does seem to be a few positive elements in
> National-
> Bolshevism- I personally found Dugin's "From Sacred Geography to
> Geopolitics" to be exceptionally interesting.