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]