Your words are quoted in extenso in that article of yours which was
posted onto the list, so we are perfectly aware of them. Whether taken
on its own or in the full sentence, the passage in hyphens still
remains awkward.
Broken down, it goes : "He denies that procreation should have a
religious or theological dimension, and believes that the Church is
being hypocritical when it comes to encouraging the use of the sexual
urge to create life. Procreation, in his opinion, is derived from
Jewish sources."
Let's not make a big deal about it, what you meant is something like
this : "The concept of procreation as an end-in-itself, in his
opinion, is derived from Jewish sources."
You have given us the opportunity to challenge further Evola's views,
according to which the Jewish precept (of procreation) was justified
on the basis of the living conditions of ancient Jews, that is to say,
on the basis of contingent factors. On the contrary, the Jewish
attitude towards procreation is actually derived from nothing other
than the first commandment of Yahweh to Adam to "Be fruitful and
multiply."
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Troy Southgate
<arktoslondon@...> wrote:
>
> >>However, there are flaws, due, either to a faulty reading or to
the imprecision of some of Evola's own formulations, an imprecision
which leads the exegete to come up with this awkward statement :
"procreation - (...) in his opinion, is derived from Jewish sources".
>
> My exact words were: "He DENIES that procreation - which, in his
opinion, is derived from Jewish sources - should have a religious or
theological dimension, and believes that the Church is being
hypocritical when it comes to encouraging the use of the sexual urge
to create life".
>
>
>
> evola_as_he_is <evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
> His views on the Crusades, his bookish views on Islam, his
somewhat
> tendentious criticism of some specific aspects of National-Socialism,
> his changing views on the 'hoax of the XXth century', the lack of
> emphasis on the racial question after WW2, etc, each time an aspect of
> his work appears to us questionable, open to criticism, we make no
> bones about bringing it to light in a constructive manner. His insight
> on the question of marriage and family, on the other hand, we do not
> find fault with. It is conclusive, impressively conclusive, which is
> not to say that it cannot be developed : for instance, it would not be
> difficult to show on the basis of Rougier's work and of ancient
> sources that the Roman family, as a concept and as a reality, as a
> living idea, was undermined and, eventually, destroyed by Christian
> precepts and the related activism of early Christians, and it could be
> argued that the patterns of modern bourgeois family are directly
> derived from Christian views on marriage and sex. The fact remains
> that all the key elements required to understand and to get to the
> bottom of the matter at hand are contained in that chapter of 'Riding
> the Tiger' on 'Marriage and the Family' and, to a lesser extent, in
> 'Men among the Ruins'.
>
> Southgate's article deals as much with 'The Problem of Births' as it
> does with the issue of 'Marriage and the Family'. On the whole, it is
> not unfaithful to Evola's actual views. However, there are flaws, due,
> either to a faulty reading or to the imprecision of some of Evola's
> own formulations, an imprecision which leads the exegete to come up
> with this awkward statement : "procreation - (...) in his opinion, is
> derived from Jewish sources". What Evola actually says is that the
> Church has given an ethical value to things which only have a
> practical, relative, value, and that the Jewish precept (of
> procreation) was justified on the basis of the living conditions of
> ancient Jews... In other words, procreation only had a practical,
> relative value among ancient Jewish tribes, and the Church gave it an
> ethical value, so much so that the concept of procreation as an
> end-in-itself is actually derived from Christian sources. In any case,
> Evola's argument is rather circular, insofar as a justification to
> this materialist view on procreation can always be given, in any
> people, in any civilisation, in any time. For instance, Drieu de la
> Rochelle and many other French far-rightists of the first part of the
> XXth century may have deluded themselves himself in thinking that, as
> a rule, 'numbers are power', the fact remains that, in concrete terms
> and given the fact that the flower of European youth had been
> decimated by the war, it could be argued that it was then necessary
> and even paramount to repopulate European countries. The 'Lebensborn'
> program was launched by H. Himmler in 1935, partly as a response to
> declining birth rates in Germany ; its purpose was to provide
> incentives to encourage Germans, especially SS-members, to have
> children, on the basis of a qualitative conception of procreation:
> "aid for racially and biologically-hereditarily valuable families ;
> the accommodation of racially and biologically-hereditarily valuable
> mothers in appropriate homes, etc ; care of the children of such
> families ; care of the mothers." In the procreation order of 28th of
> October 1939 to the SS, H. Himmler stated : "it will be the sublime
> task of German women and girls of good blood acting not frivolously
> but from a profound moral seriousness to become mothers to children of
> soldiers setting off to battle." While, as is known (see, for
> instance, http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id7.html), H. Himmler's
> racial policy as Reichsführer-SS was generally regarded in a
> favourable light by Evola, it is most interesting to note that no
> mention is made, neither in 'Fascismo e Terzo Reich', nor in 'Il
> problema della selezione interrazziale in Germania' ('Bibliografia
> fascista', 1940) and in 'Race as a Builder of Leaders', three of
> Evola's main writings on this issue, of the 'Lebensborn', one of H.
> Himmler's major initiatives in this field.
>
> Evola may "[launch] a fierce broadside against Catholic opposition to
> birth control", and yet, still in 'The Problem of Births', we are told
> that the Church seems to have been willing to make some concessions
> lately, and that, if, in the second Vatican council, the concern for
> being 'in tune with one's time' has led to unfortunate consequences,
> the explicit acknowledgment of 'love', and no longer of 'procreation'
> alone, as a legitimate foundation of marriage can be considered as
> positive. How on earth the introduction of 'love' - an old Demetrian
> trick by means of which the gynaecocratic forces at work in the
> darkest corners of Christianity have managed to emasculate the
> patriarchal and solar West - in the Catholic equation of marriage can
> be considered as "positive", we fail to see, especially when, in 'Ride
> the Tiger', we are rightly recalled that family unity could remain
> sound only as long as a suprapersonal way of feeling was powerful
> enough to relegate facts of a merely individual order to a position of
> secondary importance. People may not have been happily-married, the
> 'needs of the soul' may not have been satisfied, there was still unity.
>
> Love, Plutarch likens to a mania. An element of pathology is always
> inherent in the Greek conception of eros. In Thucydides, love is not
> only potentially baneful, it is a full-blown epidemic.('Love Among the
> Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens', V. Wohl, 2002).
> In Virgil, Corydon, Cornelius Gallus, and Orpheus are all lovesick
> characters. Virgil's reservations on love seem to be based on
> Epicureanism, on Lucretius' description and rejection of love and its
> effects ('On the Universe'). For Lucretius, "Love is a disease of the
> soul which slowly pervades the entire body, just like madness, and
> that must be eradicated before it completely upsets the
> physiopsychological balance of the man." In the 'Tusculan
> Disputations', Cicero notes of love that "of all disturbances of the
> soul there is assuredly none more violent", adding that "the disorder
> of the mind in love is in itself abominable." The same vision of love
> is reproduced in the most well-known works of Graeco-Roman literature,
> so much so that G. Adinolfi should have reread his classics before
> stating in his latest book, 'La Tortuga - pienseri non conformi di
> lotta e di vittoria', which is meant to pay tribute to the Right
> throughout history, that "the pair Honour-Love (...) is thus the basis
> of everything genuinely and spiritually traditional."
>
> The anthropologist R. Girard, whose 'Deceit, Desire and the Novel:
> Self and Other in Literary Structure on love" is a must-read, but who,
> due to the limitations inherent to his Christian world-outlook, cannot
> be expected to apply his psychological analysis of genius of the
> modern lovesick type to a metaphysical level, has summed it all up,
> without realising how true it is, as follows : "Christianity is a
> revelation of love" but also "a revelation of truth" because "in
> Christianity, truth and love coincide and are one and the same."
>
> The truth, from an Aryan standpoint -, is that 'love', whether divine
> or human, is merely a feminine value, that it can be set up as a
> supreme value and as an end-in-itself only in
> gynaecocratically-oriented societies which were originally
> patriarchal, and that marriage based on love is potentially nothing
> else than a 'cage aux folles' (the bird's cage). By acknowledging love
> as a foundation of marriage, the Church only confirmed the dethroning
> of masculine values - honour - by feminine ones - love - in the
> European civilisation, a dethroning to which it had contributed to a
> large extent by means of its conception of marriage. For ancient
> Greeks and Romans, marriage had a limited and utilitarian meaning
> (see, for instance, Denis de Rougemont, 'Love in the Western World'
>
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fqY12D__tLkC&dq=%22love+in+the+western+world%\
22&pg=PP1&ots=xbgDgvGc-c&sig=nmNJvZk3_nRLQwzWebC7uI6v_H8&hl=en&prev=http://www.g\
oogle.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=%22love+in+the+western+world%22&btnG=Searc\
h&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA37,M1
> ; 'Histoire de la femme' (two volumes), Martin, Pardes, 1996). This
> may come as a shock to some people, but, in Germanic law, marriage was
> essentially a deal between the bridegroom and the bride father's. "The
> symbol of a successful 'bride sale' was the ring (a form of down
> payment) which was given to the bride herself. Acceptance of the ring
> constituted betrothal. The full payment of the 'bride price' was made
> on delivery, i.e., when the actual wedding took place." Let us bear in
> mind, however, that, both in ancient Rome and in ancient Scandinavia,
> economic interests were subordinate to higher interests. The more
> marriage became under the influence of the Church, the more it could
> be built on the free consent of both partners, a policy which was
> bound to give women and, beyond this, to feminine values, an influence
> which, by nature, they are not worth having, and which, besides. it is
> dangerous to concede them. The Christian marriage, by becoming a
> sacrament, imposed an unbearable 'fidelity' to man. The time was gone
> when Demosthenes could state : "We have prostitutes for our pleasure,
> concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring.".
> The Christian conception of marriage, as implemented from the early
> Middle Ages on along feminine lines, could not but pave the way to
> Bovarysm and, eventually, to the hysterical reign of the Bovaries, the
> last couples on earth.
>
> A beautiful woman marries a small town doctor, Charles Bovary.
> Dissatisfied with her marriage, Emma has a series of love affairs
> which eventually lead her to social disgrace, financial ruin, and
suicide.
>
> Does this ring a bell?
>
> It should.
>
> As to marriage, the second aspect of the issue at stake, we could not
> agree more with Evola's views, and what we have just pointed out
> should be enough to make any man worth of the name realise for good,
> in case he has not realised yet, that marriage is not for him. As
> emphasised by Evola in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', the values
> embodied by the Aryan woman represent, as compared to those borne by
> the Aryan man, at best non-Aryan values, at worse anti-Aryan values.
> In a civilisation based on and shaped by masculine values, these non-
> or anti-Aryan values are closely subordinated to Aryan ones and, in
> the process, brought back to a higher level, 'refined', transfigured.
> As soon as a virile civilisation falls under the influence of feminine
> values, they are set free, and nothing prevents them any more from
> acting according to their nature. Woman is a being who must be shaped,
> whether she likes it or not, for her own good, failing which man is
> distorted by her, In a civilisation utterly conditioned and determined
> by feminine values, a man is not in a position to shape a woman. In
> this milieu which, as can be clearly seen, felt, heard, and even
> smelled in day-to-day life, providing that one is sensitive to these
> things, is nothing else than a manifestation of 'herself', needless to
> say that she feels at ease, in her element, and, left to her own
> devices, disposable as she is, there is no way she can fight her inner
> demons. As a result, to be in a relationship with a woman in this day
> and age means to make concessions and compromises : to stoop so low as
> to go down to her own level. Save very few exceptions, the very last
> cases of absolute dedication of a woman to a man, of a wife to her
> husband, in the West were witnessed in the German people, including in
> its leading stratum, during the Third Reich.
>
> To state that "(...) there is a strong case for the perpetuation of
> the New Man through the foundation of alternative,
> revolutionary-conservative families which live in accordance with
> Tradition" implies that this 'New Man' does exist (otherwise, it could
> not be perpetuated). Does it?
>
> A "revolutionary-conservative family" is not a family in which the
> husband gives a little smile at the baby every thirty seconds. A
> "revolutionary-conservative family" is not a family in which 'hubby',
> no matter how deeply interested he is in Runes, can be requisitioned
> at any time by 'mam' to do the dishes, to go shopping or/and to take
> Thor or Siegfried - the dog - out for a walk.
>
> On the other hand, it is not necessary to be married to have children,
> is it? If, given current circumstances, there is no doubt that
> marriage can only be a burden for a 'differentiated man' and
> procreation should not be regarded as a value, Evola is aware that
> race cannot be perpetuated if the best ones do not and are not willing
> to reproduce. As quoted by Southgate, "Besides those who should be
> available as shock-troops, it would certainly be auspicious to form a
> second group that would ensure the hereditary continuity of a chosen
> and protected elite, as the counterpart of the transmission of a
> political-spiritual tradition and world-view: ancient nobility was an
> example of this." However, this nobility no longer exists. Even those
> few noble families which have not become united to Jews by marriage in
> the past two centuries are unable to live up to the standards of
> nobility. And it is untrue to state that "Evola has considered the
> idea of elitist families, without doubt:" "the example of those
> centuries-old religious orders that embraced celibacy suggests that a
> continuity may be ensured with means other than physical procreation".
> It is untrue and even absurd, since, as far as we know, a religious
> order is not a family.
>
> Evola does "remains very skeptical" about the whole thing "and
> considers the revival of such an idea utopian because it would be
> difficult for a father to have control over his offspring amid the
> turmoil of the West." In fact, this difficulty is almost dwarfed by
> another obstacle, which is of an inner nature : "Even if this quality
> (fatherhood, not only in a biological sense) was still present - and,
> as a rule, it should be assumed that it is still present in the man
> with whom we are dealing - it would be paralysed, in new generations,
> by a dissociated and refractory matter."
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "periphyseon" <periphyseon@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > One thing I have contemplated about is Evolas view on marriage and
> the family. Indeed
> > Evola made his stance clear on the marriage question [in "Ride the
> Tiger"] and not due to
> > lessening the burden of raising a family on the "differentiated man"
> but how the man of
> > tradition must be ready at all times for the sacrifice, thus
> celibacy as his conclusion to this
> > problem. Granted we can see how these institutions have been
> profaned overtime, but
> > given the questionable survival of the nordic strains in the coming
> generations would it
> > not seem viable that in some way it is continued and the
> institutions reconstructed? We
> > can see to a certain extent how such institutions in the past
> existed through the chilvaric
> > orders in the middle ages, et cetera. I would appreciate it if you
> could inform me if I have
> > misinterpreted anything here.
> >
> > In relation to this, while I am fully ready to except the doctrine
> as espoused by Evola, what
> > is your [the webmaster's] opinion of Southgates's analogy of this
> issue:
> >
> > "At this point Evola launches a fierce broadside against Catholic
> opposition to birth
> > control. He denies that procreation - which, in his opinion, is
> derived from Jewish sources
> > - should have a religious or theological dimension, and believes
> that the Church is being
> > hypocritical when it comes to encouraging the use of the sexual urge
> to create life: "In
> > every other instance besides sex, the Church praises and formally
> approves... the
> > predominance of the intellect and will over the impulses of the
> senses." Indeed,
> > Catholicism does tend to relegate the act of sexual union to the
> level of an animalistic act
> > which is considered necessary for procreation. Abstinence and
> celibacy, says Evola, are far
> > more in tune with asceticism and the pursuit of the supernatural. At
> this stage in the
> > debate, Evola has not even mentioned the use of contraception or
> abortion, so I would
> > therefore agree with his alternative conclusions about the more
> sacred nature of chastity.
> > Birth control, he argues, is a bourgeois concept and the New Man "by
> adopting an attitude
> > of militant and absolute commitment, should be ready for anything
> and almost feel that
> > creating a family is a 'betrayal'; these men should live sine
> impedimentis, without any ties
> > or limits to their freedom." This approach certainly makes sense,
> but I also feel that there
> > is a strong case for the perpetuation of the New Man through the
> foundation of
> > alternative, revolutionary-conservative families which live in
> accordance with Tradition.
> > Evola - inspired by Nietzsche's idea that "men should be trained for
> war and women for
> > the recreation of the warrior" - may indeed dismiss such a process
> as being little more
> > than a form of "heroism in slippers," but such families can also act
> as a beacon and a
> > source of inspiration for those warriors who remain unbound. Evola
> has considered the
> > idea of elitist families, without doubt: "the example of those
> centuries-old religious orders
> > that embraced celibacy suggests that a continuity may be ensured
> with means other than
> > physical procreation. Besides those who should be available as
> shock-troops, it would
> > certainly be auspicious to form a second group that would ensure the
> hereditary continuity
> > of a chosen and protected elite, as the counterpart of the
> transmission of a political-
> > spiritual tradition and worldview: ancient nobility was an example
> of this." However, he
> > remains very sceptical and considers the revival of such an idea
> utopian because it would
> > be difficult for a father to have control over his offspring amid
> the turmoil of the West.
> > This is very true, but the increasing success of home-schooling in
> both America and the
> > British Isles does prove that it is realistically possible to build
> a network of alternative
> > families who reject the materialism of the West itself."
> >
> > [From "The Problem of Births" passage - Troy Southgate's essay
> "Julius Evola: A Radical
> > Traditionalist" http://svonz.lenin.ru/articles/Southgate-Evola.html]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Inbox.
>