First, the Right has been so often defined on this list, both as a
concept and as a historical reality, that it can be reasonably assumed
that, had it not been fully understood, clarifications would have been
asked by now. Alternatively, the definition of the Right is given in
'Men among the Ruins', which has been read by anyone seriously
interested in Evola's work and in the order of reality which is
expounded in it.
Then, a division did exist in the European pre-1789 society, although
it was not of the political order, since most of the members of the
faction who sat on the left-hand side of the Assembly, members of
bourgeoisie supposedly 'representing' urban wage-earners, peasants
and, in general, lower classes, did not have any actual political
rights under the Ancien regime, despite 'parlements'. The division,
under the Ancien Regime as in any traditional Aryan society, was
vertical ('orders', 'castes'), and not horizontal, as it is, by force
of necessity, in egalitarian societies.
Finally, Evola's position goes far beyond the "counterrevolutionary"
attitude of de Maitre, whose limitations have been been brought to
light by various scholars, and by Evola himself, to start with. The
fight against the causes behind the '1789's baby Bloom' cannot be
limited to a mere reaction. One thing is to oppose, another thing is
to assert. These inseparable parts of any fight worth of the name are
found in most of his books. In this respect, see, for instance,
Sintesi di dottrina della razza', whose first part is about race as
"anti-rationalism", as "anti-evolutionism", as "anti-materialism", and
whose last part deals with the reconstruction of a race.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:
>
> In order to speak about a "crisis of the Right", it is important to
be clear
> about what the "Right" is. The division into Right and Left was brought
> about following the French Revolution. Prior to that there was no
division;
> there were only those "principles … that … every well-born person
considered
> sane and normal," (Evola in his "Self-defense"). The position Evola
defends
> is "traditional and counterrevolutionary." Evola includes Maistre
among such
> sane and normal men.
>
>
>
> So to understand what the "Right" is, it is necessary to hold to those
> principles considered sane and normal prior to 1789. It would seem
that Mr.
> Faye's principles are not those principles. In particular, the Europe he
> wants to "save" is the Europe of free speech, secularism, women's
> liberation, in sum, the Europe of the Enlightenment. Yet that is
precisely
> the problem, not the solution, and Mr. Faye is not suggesting a
homeopathic
> remedy with a highly diluted enlightenment.
>
>
>
> The fundamental issue is that the Enlightenment claimed to have
discovered
> "man", man as rational, man as freely entering into contractual
relations,
> man free to believe or not believe, man equal to every other man, man
> "without qualities" and independent of every hierarchy and organic
> relationship which are viewed as evil restrictions on man's liberty.
But the
> saner and normal Maistre, a careful observer of the human condition,
wrote
> in "Considerations on France":
>
>
>
> "The Constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, was made for man. But
> there is no such thing as man in the world. In my lifetime I have seen
> Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; thanks to Montesquieu, I even
know that
> one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never in
my life
> met him; if he exists, he is unknown to me."
>
>
>
> A healthy organism has an identity and strives to protect it. A
Frenchman at
> Poitiers knew he was not a Moor. A European at Lepanto knew he was not a
> Turk. We witness a soft echo of this still in the struggle for
Belgium. Yet
> the men of today, infused with Enlightenment values, literally
cannot see a
> Frenchman, an Italian, a Russian, a Maghrebian … he can only see
"man". Any
> attempt for any group to assert its identity against another must
be, for
> him, a return to some dark period of history, which must be
overcome. So if
> there are only "men", then there is no identity to protect.
>
>
>
> Mr. Faye turns to science and biology for answers, again a solution
rejected
> by Evola on principle. An animal never acts against his nature since
it is
> determined by biology, but a man is a spiritual being and can act
either in
> accordance with or against his nature. Thus there is no "gene" for
religion.
> Maistre rightly asserted that man is both a social and religious
creature.
> But that belongs to man as spirit, not man as animal. Socially, he
can live
> in an hierarchical, organic society or in a contractual, egalitarian
one.
> Similarly, his religion can support the solar spirit – at least for the
> higher elements – yet provide coherence and order for the lower classes.
>
>
>
> Mr. Faye also invokes Rousseau's General Will, which Faye believe
would rise
> up and support ethnic identity, were it not for the efforts of the
rulers to
> suppress it. But what of value and worth can rise up from the bottom?
> Remember Vendée and the Gulags. In a "democracy", with one man, one
vote, a
> woman's vote counts the same as a man's, a Frenchman's the same as an
> Algerian's … how can a General Will arise from that?
>
>
>
> The "Future of the Intellectual", as Maurras saw … there is great
financial
> success and fame today to write about the decline of the West.
Everyone from
> Oriana Fallaci (who preferred America) to Pat Buchanan and now many
across
> Europe are getting in the game. But they only want to save the wrong
Europe.
> The "crisis" of the Right is that there is no Right. There are only
those on
> the Left traveling downhill, and those on the Left trying to put the
brakes
> on.
>
>
>
> There must be a "rejection of the French Revolution and all that arises
> directly or indirectly from it." There must be a rejection of
Bolshevism.
> There must be a rejection of the Enlightenment and Liberalism:
> individualism, materialism, the dominance of science, secularism, false
> ideals of freedom, egalitarianism, sexual libertinism. That will end the
> crisis and then there will only be the right moment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of G
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:20 AM
> To:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [SPAM][evola_as_he_is] Crisis of the contemporary Right
>
>
>
> I do not know how much this will be appreciated, but I would like to
> share two video interviews which give an insight into the current
> crisis of the Right.
>
> Guillame Faye (French language. Dutch subtitles)
>
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2514650272578459190
>
> Horst Mahler (German language. Dutch subtitles)
>
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=7139330172930782102
>
> The interviews are done by Alfred Vierling, an ex-member of both the
> Dutch Centrum Partij '86 (Centrum Party '86) and the Centrum
> Democraten (Centrum Democrats).
>
> Zum Schluss: I would like to make clear that posting these hyperlinks
>