Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

rouesolaire · rouesolaire@yahoo.fr | Group Member  - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups
evola_as_he_is · EVOLA AS HE IS

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 121
  • Category: Spirituality
  • Founded: Nov 19, 2004
  • Language: English

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Marriage and the Family   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Reply  | 
Re: [evola_as_he_is] Marriage and the Family

>>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.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=%22love+in+the+western+world%22&btnG=Search&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.

Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:36 am

arktoslondon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 | 
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

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...
periphyseon Offline Send Email Mar 27, 2008
11:48 am

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...
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email Mar 29, 2008
3:50 pm

... My exact words were: "He DENIES that procreation - which, in his opinion, is derived from Jewish sources - should have a religious or theological...
Troy Southgate
arktoslondon Offline Send Email
Mar 31, 2008
12:27 am

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...
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email Mar 31, 2008
12:58 am

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines NEW - Help