A long message filled with ad hominem attacks against us was lately
sent to this forum and, as usual when it comes to messages containing
more than a reasonable amount of ad hominem attacks, it will not be
published. It will not be published for another reason, which is far
more important : the 'anguis in herba' who wrote it does not read the
messages posted onto this forum or, if he does, he does not take them
in consideration or, when he does, the highly controversial tone he
adopts shows that he uses J. Evola's work to settle accounts with us,
and makes it impossible to address his criticisms without getting
personal and making him face his contradictions by quoting excerpts of
emails he sent us, which could turn out to be rather embarassing for
him, to say the least.
The message, when expurgated from its controversial content and from
its personal attacks, still turns out to contain more or less
interesting and relevant points, which will be adressed, whether or
not they have already been tackled on this forum.
It is claimed that "it is certainly revealing that the three books
translated by 'Thompkins&Cariou' are ones which were not republished
until Evola's death - for the obvious reason that Evola did not wish
for these to be re-edited.", when, three years ago (message 431), we
stated : "it should be stressed that Evola never forbid expressly and
legally the re-publication of 'Imperialismo pagano', contrary to the
assumptions made on the InterNet by some 'Mrs I-know-everything' on
the basis of partial information which they got from an introduction
written to 'Men among the Ruins' by the current translator of Evola's
work in German. The problem is far more complex than assumed. The man
who was in charge of Fondazione Evola for years, Gianfranco de Turris
- who, a few years after having upheld that debatable thesis in
'Elogio e difesa di Julius Evola', accepted to be the editor of the
fourth edition of 'Imperialismo pagano' - has come to realise it."
Before throwing the book at us, that individual should reflect on the
fact that, in spite of the fact that he knew of J. Evola's reluctance
in this respect, he still worked for almost two years on the
translation of 'Heathen Imperialism' (the published version of the
book is not his).
After WW2, the fact is that no publisher was interested in
republishing J. Evola's works on race. In the mid-1960's, however,
elements linked to the Italian group called 'Ordine Nuovo' decided to
reprint these, without even asking for permission J. Evola, who, as a
result, had to deal with the fait accompli. This is what we meant when
we said that the problem is far more complex than is generally
assumed, especially by those who have no access to primary sources.
"As for the other works, which were written in the period of the
Second World War, he writes that "je renie rien de ce que j'écrivis
alors: tout en reconnaissant que represent tels problèmes aujourd'hui
[misquotation : "que represent tels problemes" is not French] n'aurait
pratiquement aucun sens [ce qui vaut aussi pour la question juive elle
même]" (French translation, p.156). If Evola himself can thus claim
that re-opening the issues of race and the Jewish question "makes
absolutely no sense" today - and thus implicitly recognising the
historical contingency of those issues - is "evola_as_he_is" really
living up to the claim of his name?" Leaving aside that misquotation,
J. Evola never stated that it "makes absolutely no sense" to re-open
these issues of race today : "n'aurait pratiquement aucun sens" is
translated here as "makes absolutely no sense", when what it really
means is "would not make any sense on the practical plane". Once
again, that 'anguis in herba' has not read or has forgotten what is
written in the conclusion of the introduction to Evola's work we
posted on our website five years ago :
"Now, it could be objected that Evola says in 'Il Cammino del Cinabro'
that "after the second world war, (he) was to state the absurdity of
stressing the 'Jewish' or 'Aryan' problem [note that J. Evola says :
"the 'Jewish' or 'Aryan' problem" and not the racial problem as such]
from a higher point of view, precisely for the simple reason that the
negative attitude attributed to Jews is now shown by the majority of
'Aryans', without the latter having the former's excuse of a
hereditary predisposition". (...). Obviously, "it would be completely
absurd to take up again today similar problems on the practical plane"
(ibidem). 'On the practical plane', but not on the theoretical."
"On the practical plane, but not on the theoretical one".
What takes the cake is that that 'anguis in herba' has the nerve to
lecture us despite the fact that he cannot read Italian and, as a
result, does not have access to primary sources ; and that, a few
lines further, he goes so far as to mock "the methods of verification
common to that milieu [the far right]." The waterer watered.
A point of no return is reached when we are told : "Rather than
telling encouraging people to go through his website, "evola_as_he_is"
should perhaps go through it himself! And perhaps also through his own
publications, such as 'Three Aspects of the Jewish Question', wherein
Evola writes: "If we look in general at all that can be considered as
negative and as a fall from the ideals of a spirituality and a
civilisation of 'Aryan' type (a word to which we have given in the
previous pages not a racial, but a typological sense!), we are then
faced with a far more complex reality, and the idea that comes to mind
is that of a plan, in which, however, the Jewish, and, in general,
Semitic element, only plays a subordinate part, not irrelevant....but
still subordinate and probably only instrumental" (p.27)" Leaving
aside that that 'anguis in herba' experiences problems in reading
what's written in black and white (the people who are strongly
encouraged to go through our website if they don't want to make a fool
of themselves in public are "those who feel like defaming us" ; and
not just anyone), it turns out that, almost four years ago, we stated
(message 72) : "At the risk of disappointing some people, we must make
it clear that the Jews, who are along with the Chinese possibly the
most feminine people on earth, are only instruments of the forces of
chaos, or infra-human forces, which are behind this process which has
led the West to gynaecocracy ; among their most efficient instruments,
to be sure, but merely instruments nonetheless." Furthermore, those
who have been corresponding with us for years can testify that we
agree with J. Evola that Jews are instruments and that our standpoint
has never varied in the slightest over the years, whether in public or
in private, so that, to dare to claim to have been "[following] the
activities on this list for months and even years past", either that
individual has a short term memory or a selective one. To top it all
off, we upheld rigorously the same view in an email we sent him two
years ago and, at that time, it did not seem to bother him.
While agreeing that "If we look in general at all that can be
considered as negative and as a fall from the ideals of a spirituality
and a civilisation of 'Aryan' type (...), we are then faced with a far
more complex reality", and that the part played by the Semitic element
in the "plan" is "probably only instrumental", we can only note that,
in that passage, that "far more complex reality" is not defined, nor
is the entity of which the Semitic element would be the instrument. As
a result, there is room for interpretation. It seems to us that that
"far more complex reality" can be related to the "third, underground,
dimension," of history "which contains decisive forces and influences
often irreducible to the simple human element, be it individual or
collective" (http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id48.html) and that,
if one was to investigate whom the Jews may be the instrument of, one
would do well to ponder over the fact that, as showed by O. Weininger,
they are one of the most feminine peoples. In any case, we have made
clear that there are strong grounds for thinking that J. Evola somehow
downplayed the influence of the Jew on European economic, political
and cultural life. It's all very well to state that the "struggle
against the Jew often hides a struggle against general structures
prevalent throughout modern civilisation, as well as against what can
be considered as an anticipation of such structures in the ancient
world." : but, what if the "general structures prevalent throughout
modern civilisation" originate in the Jewish forma mentis and are a
mere product of it ? In 'Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben', W.
Sombart, who, in the introduction to that work of his, denies being an
anti-Semite and criticises anti-Semitism, lists hundreds of
distinctive Jewish inventions which have played a conspicuous role in
the development of modern capitalist from the Middle Ages to modern
times : "moneylending, from pawnbroking to the financing of great
states ; certain types of commodity business, particularly retailing,
peddling and produce trade of a distinctively rural type ; certain
branches of wholesale business ; and trading in securities, above all
the brokerage of stocks," not to mention the café (the first café in
Europe was opened by a Jew in London in the early seventeenth century)
and second-hand retail. What if (see message 1158), the "anticipation
of such structures in the ancient world" is also due essentially to
Semitic (not just Jewish, but, indeed, Semitic) influences ? J. Evola
stressed the determinant part played by Jews in the genesis of
Bolshevism and in that of modern capitalism and, objectively, he was
right to do so ; however, for some reasons, he never even alluded to
the substantial involvement of Jews in Fascism. Even the crassest
anti-Fascist milieux have not raised that point.
As a rule, we expose J. Evola's standpoint and back it with quotes
from his work (hence the name of the forum : evola_as_he_is) ; then,
ours, if it differs from his. For example, our point of view on Islam
and on the Crusades differs greatly from his and all those who have
really been following the activities of this forum and who don't have
a short term or selective memory know that, when tackling these
topics, we first bring forward his views, then ours, in order to
analyse and discuss the former. "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." (message 126) As we have repeatedly
pointed out, J. Evola's work, to us, is not an end-in-itelf, but a means.
Then, that 'anguis in herba', still violently convinced that we have
not read J. Evola's work and/or or own website, quotes another passage
of the Italian writer's work : "A serious formulation of the Jewish
problem cannot overlook that which concerns the 'Aryan' peoples
themselves: the Jew must be prevented from becoming a kind of
scapegoat for everything that in reality the non-Jews also have to
answer for." Had he been "[following] the activities on this list for
months and even years past", he may have realised that we are as
critical of Jewishised Whites, that is, to paraphrase De Vries de
Hekeelingen, of spiritually circumcised Whites, as we are of Jews.
However, we still agree with J. Evola that, to cure an evil, it is the
cause of this evil, and not its consequences, that must be fought
first : the -ish, and not the -ised. In this respect, it should be
borne in mind that, to the best of our knowledge, Evola's work was
criticised mostly by his contemporary racialist fellow countrymen, and
not by Jews, who, as a rule, prefer to ignore works which look at the
Jewish problem from a racial standpoint, the only standpoint they do
not like to be looked at from. Understandingly, this may have led J.
Evola to attach excessive importance to his Jewishised contemporaries,
as opposed to the Jews ; to the consequences, as opposed to the cause.
It is deeply interesting to note that, while race was considered by J.
Evola as a more or less contingent question before WW2 and after WW2,
it was regarded as something essential in some of the texts he
published during WW2, as showed by this excerpt from 'Gli Ebrei in
Italia e il vero problema ebraico' (taken from 'Il 'Genio'
d'Israele'), published just a few months before he endeavoured to
write 'The Doctrine of Awakening' : "This should thus be understood
once and for all : the Jewish problem is not the Sionist problem sic
et simpliciter, it is not the 'religious' problem sic et simpliciter :
it is a racial problem in the deepest and, so to speak, metaphysical,
sense of the word." As a coincidence, the influence of Guenon's
conceptions on his work, deep from the late 1920's to the mid-1930's,
cannot be felt to the same extent in the writings he published during
WW2. We have already mentioned that race is possibly the less
contingent element in the human being : you can change everything,
your car, your wife, your haircut, your opinions, your sex, your
religion, and even your ideas and your skin colour, almost overnight :
race, you can't. This simple fact of life, most people, from
traditionalists, whether Christian or not, to anti-racists, cannot
face and, to avoid having to face it, they are willing to hold onto
any discursive, analytical illusion.
So is M. Olander, a Jewish scholar who, curled up in the Republican
cocoon, earns a living publishing anti-racist books meant to brainwash
further Jewishised Europeans into believing that racism originates in
the scientist theories of the nineteeenth century, and whose books
that 'anguis in herba' advises us to read, assuming that we have never
heard of that sociologist and of his products. We once went through
the table of contents of 'Le Racisme: mythes et sciences' (ed. M.
Olander, Brussels, Complexe, 1981). Unsurprisingly, the guy does not
seem to have heard of the Rg Veda.
"Black skin is impious" ("Dasam varnam adharam") (Rg.V.II.12.4)
"stormy gods (...) rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black
skin" (Rg.V.IX.73)
And so forth.
In the introduction to 'Il Mito del sangue', a history of racism
which, however, does not go back to the epoch where the Rg Veda was
written, and which does not claim to be exhaustive, J. Evola states
that, in the Graeco-Roman world, racism was "not theorised, but
experienced".
A few days ago, the following excerpt from J. Evola's introduction of
his Italian translation of 'The Protocols' was quoted : "the problem
of their 'authenticity' is secondary to the far more serious and
essential problem of their 'veracity'. The serious and positive
conclusion of the whole controversy which has developed since is that,
even if we assume that the 'Protocols' are not 'authentic' in the
narrow sense, it comes to the same thing as if they were, for two
capital and decisive reasons :
1) because the facts show that they describe the real state of affairs
truthfully ;
2) because their correspondence with the governing ideas of both
traditional and modern Judaism is indisputable.
Despite this quote, that 'anguis in herba' still knocks himself out
trying to prove that 'The Protocols' are an hoax ("A recent account of
the falsification of the 'Protocols', we are then told by that
individual, can be found in Maurice Olender's 'La chasse aux
évidences' (Seuil, 2005)), while trying his best not to acknowledge
the considerations put forward by the authors of 'Holly Blood, Holly
Grail' we quoted in message 1178, and whose most interesting part in
this respect we are going to quote again : "Why would an anti-Semitic
forger have made up such a statement? Why would he not have attempted
to incriminate all Jews, rather than just a few - the few who
constitute 'the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree'? Why would
he not declare that the document was signed by, say, the
representatives of the international Jewish conspiracy." If it has not
been forged by an anti-Semite, by whom could it have been devised ?
For what purposes ? In whose interest is it to concoct and to spread a
text on a Jewish conspiracy whose borrowings from previous texts are
so obvious that it is bound to be exposed as a plagiary and,
therefore, in this context, as an hoax, within a few years. In
passing, note the childishly and tendentiously absurd equation between
plagiary and hoax. Each year, thousands and thousands of students all
over the world use or imitate the language and thoughts of authors
whose books or/and articles they have found on web sites or in
libraries, in order to write their assignments : X has to write a
phonetics assignment on, say, explosives in Slovakian and, to do so,
he borrows freely from an authoritative study by Y on explosives in
Slovakian. This is plagiarism. However, the fact remains that there
are explosives in Slovakian and that one would have to be mad to deny
it and to consider the claim that there are explosives in Slovakian as
an hoax. In the same way, 'The Protocols' may be a plagiary, but one
would have to be off one's trolley to deny that the facts show that
they describe the real state of affairs. To the very best of our
knowledge, it is only in the context of 'The Protocols' controversy
that the notion of plagiarism is absurdly equated with that of hoax.
Meanwhile, the question we asked a few days ago remains valid. Are the
following excerpts from the Bible also forgeries ?
"And that the kingdom, and power, and the greatness of the kingdom,
under the whole heaven, may be given to the people of the saints of
the most High: whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all kings
shall serve him, and shall obey him." (Daniel 7:27 - Douay-Rheims Bible)
"But you shall be called the priests of the Lord: to you it shall be
said: Ye ministers of our God: you shall eat the riches of the
Gentiles, and you shall pride yourselves in their glory." (Isaiah 61:6
- Douay-Rheims Bible)
"Thou shalt consume all the people, which the Lord thy God will
deliver to thee. Thy eye shall not spare them, neither shalt thou
serve their gods, lest they be thy ruin." (Deuteronomy 7:16 -
Douay-Rheims Bible)
These excerpts, as well as other Biblical gems and Talmudic related
gems, were quoted by J. Evola in some of the articles he wrote on the
Jewish problem, while, understandlingly, Christian fondamentalists
such as M. Hoffmann refuse to acknowledge the subtle connections that
exist between the Ancient Testament and the Talmud. "H.T. Hansen, we
are told, reveals that "Carlo Mattogno, who is probably more partial
toward Evola, in a series of articles for 'Orion' examined the
aforementioned quotes allegedly stemming from old Hebew sources, and
proved that they were either falsified (though long before Evola),
taken out of context, or in some cases freely invented. Barely a
single quote was reproduced correctly! (See Carlo Mattogno's articles
in 'Orion', no. 22, July 1986, p. 169; vol IV, no. 12, December 1987,
p.94; vol. VI, no. 3, March 1989, p.232)" ("Julius Evola's Political
Endeavors" in Men Among the Ruins, Inner Traditions, p. 87). "These
quotes, we are then told ex cathedra, however, were not taken from the
original writings but from second- and thirdhand sources, such as
Rohling's 'Talmudjuden' and Theodor Fritsch's 'Handbuch der
Judenfrag'." First, how can someone make such assumptions when none
of the excerpts from the Talmud quoted by J. Evola bear any reference
? Then, why would J. Evola have bothered to quote German sources, that
is, to translate these quotes from German sources into Italian, when
he was in possession of the Italian translation of 'Christianus in
Talmude Iudaeorum sive Rabbinicae doctrinae de Christianis secreta' by
I.P. Pranaitis (St Petersburg, 1892), which contains all the excerpts
from the Talmud which are found in his work, and to which he even
dedicated an article : 'I Cristiani e il Talmud', La Vita Italiana',
November 1939, La Vita Italiana) ?
We are fully aware that these Talmudic quotes are presented on many
websites as "falsified", "taken out of context", or "freely invented",
just as we are fully aware of the fact that most of these sites are
owned by Jews or/and by Freemasons. "Antisemites such as Van Hyning,
Nesta Webster, Benjamin H. Freedman and Wesley Swift have claimed that
the Talmud has been systematically hidden from non-Jews, and that it
is the supreme authority of Jewish law, philosophy and ethics. In
truth, it is available in most good public libraries"
(http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/van_hyning.html). What this
masonic site does not say is that the Talmud which has been available
for a long time in "most good public libraries" is an expurged version
of it. "The Talmud is composed of two distinct parts, one, so to
speak, exoteric, the other reserved to the initiates, that is to say,
to traditionalists, to die-hard orthodoxe Jews, to the rabbinical
clique. Many exhaustive works have been published on the former - and
books are often found, and not only books written by Jews, which
emphasise the 'noble' ideas of the Talmud that are strictly faithful
to the spirituality of the Old Testament which Christianity inherited.
This is not true of the second part of Talmud, and particularly of the
inner morality of Judaism, of the way Jews regard non Jews, of the
rules of conduct that should be followed with regard to the latter.
What is significant is that, when, at the beginning of the eighteenth
century, editions of rabbinical literature started to be published
almost in their entirety, influential rabbis, meeting in synod in
Poland, decided that, in the new editions of the Talmud, the passages
concerning this inner part, especially those which contained insults
against Christians and their religion, were to be left blank and to be
replaced by a conventional sign, so that the rabbis can teach their
contents only orally - the exact text of the decree was published by
de' Bagni [the publisher of the Italian translation of 'Christianus in
Talmude Iudaeorum sive Rabbinicae doctrinae de Christianis secreta')."
('I Cristiani e il Talmud')
The excerpts from the Talmud quoted by J. Evola are so genuine that
Rabbi Praver, after having read the manuscript of 'Judaism
Discovered', an updated and even more documented version of I.P.
Pranaitis' book, emailed the author (M. Hoffmann) to tell him : "There
is no question in my mind that you are a Talmid Chacham"('Talmid
Chacham' (literally : a pupil of wisdom) is an honorific title given
to one well versed in Jewish law), before turning against him for
having quoted that email of his on the back cover of 'Judaism Discovered'.
Finally, we are accused of holding "anti-traditional views". And so is
Evola. As far as we are concerned, we have never claimed to hold
'traditional views'. The views we hold are rooted in our own
tradition, which has nothing to do with that of that 'anguis in
herba'. What is actually anti-traditional by definition is the concept
of Tradition conceived of along monogenist lines as the transcendent
unity of all religions, cultures, and races. This concept, even though
it can be found in nuce in the various scriptures of Abrahamic
religions, was formulated for the first time in the early twentieth
century.