Hello,
It is safe to say that Evola must have asked himself the same
question after WW2: "what purpose would there be in re-
publishing 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', 'Il Mito del
sangue', 'Indirizzi per une educazione razziale' and 'Tre Aspetti del
problema ebraico' ?" As for race, ke knew what it means.
As a publisher of the English translation of the two latter works, we
are most willing to set out and examine, before judging their
respective coherence, the reasons he did not wish to re-publish these
books on the question of race after WW2. Having read and pondered
over the various statements which he made on this issue, it is our
conviction that the question is far from being as easy to resolve as
it is generally assumed.
Before turning to the question of the reception of Evola's work and,
more generally, of his books on race in Anglo-Saxon countries, we'd
like to make a simple observation which should get readers thinking
on the level of penetration of the conception of race set out by this
Italian author: before 1945, Evola's books on race were not
translated into any other language apart from German. 40 years passed
before, in 1996, 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza' was translated
into Spanish; before, in 1999, a French translation of 'Il Mito del
sangue' was finally brought out and, three years after, 'Synthèse de
doctrine de la race' appeared; a somewhat soft version of 'Indirizzi
per una educazione razziale' was published in 1984; the GRECE, the so-
called 'new right', never viewed the translation of Evola's racial
books in a favourable light. Those who are aware of what the GRECE is
really about will see why.
Neither in France, nor in Spain, nor in Germany, nor in Russia, nor
even in Italy, these books were not published by a major publishing
house. Needless to elaborate. Conte from Naples, however, was a major
publishing house in the Italy of the beginning of the 1940's, and so
was Hoepli from Milan, which brought out 'Il Mito del sangue' during
WW2. No one seems to have inquired about the sales figures, nor about
the run. What we know is that the reception of the theory of the
three degrees of race set out by Evola was not up to Evola's
expectations; most Italian racialists came down against this theory
in the name of this 'zoological' racism Evola criticised; these are
the "incompetents" to whom Evola referred in the foreword to "The
Elements of Racial Education"; some of their howlers can be found in
the introduction to the Ar edition of 'Sintesi di dottrina della
razza'. Compared to this general outcry, the critiques made by
Germans against this theory can be considered as moderate: they show
a lack of understanding, but, unlike the others, they are not filled
with stupidity.
A large dose of infantilism is mixed with stupidity in the
caricatural speech on race which is found on the InterNet, which so-
called Anglo-Saxon organisations and movements which claim to be
nationalist oriented often fuel, when they don't initiate it
(however, let's bear in mind that these e-lists are filled
with 'agents provocateurs' and these organisations are infiltrated).
Political theoreticians are conspicuous by their absence. Not to
mention racialists worth of the name. No racial consciousness can
arise in people who show by their behaviour and their speech that
they have lost their inner race. This is true of anti-racists,
whether passive or militant, as well as of the circles which spread
materialist views on race.
The situation is not better in occupied Europe, where discussions
on race may be even more marginalised than they are in the U.S. and
it is more than risky to try and bring them into the public forum. In
this respect, it is best to let people who are still racially
conscious come to us. Not only it is best, but it is natural. In this
respect, the Salons which you run, far from the InterNet, which,
fortunately, is not the whole world yet, are definitely a worthy
initiative. It is not about convincing people, it is about giving
right points of reference to some of those who still feel that race
is present in them.
So far, 400 people or so have read "Synthèse de doctrine de la
race" and "Le Mythe du sang" in France. There must be at least as
many potential readers of 'Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem' and
of 'The Elements of Racial Education' in Anglo-Saxon countries.
However this may be, whether the views set up by Evola find a way
around or not does not bring in any way into question their intrinsic
value. The value of an idea is not to be judged in terms of mere
impact. If it was to be so, then 'zoological' racism and anti-racism
would have to be considered as most worthy, owing to the strong
impact they both have on the masses. As an Arab maxim goes: "only lie
spreads".
Thompkins&Cariou
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Ciopa"
<hyperborean@b...> wrote:
> The title of Chapter 1 is "What 'Race' Means. But before looking
at this,
> it seems appropriate to ask "why, now?", that is, what purpose is
there in
> publishing an English translation of a secondary work by Evola on
race?
>
>
>
> It is of some interest that within the past few years all of
Guenon's works
> and a large number of Evola's works have been published in English,
all the
> more surprising since there is no frame of reference in the
Anglophone world
> for their point of view. Nevertheless, none of Evola's books on
race have
> been published by a major publishing house, and it is unlikely for
that to
> happen. The religious wars of the Reformation wearied the European
peoples
> and had the effect of relegating religion to the private sphere.
Similarly,
> two catastrophic civil wars over racial issues in the space of
under 100
> years have made public discussion of race distasteful. (Obviously,
I have in
> mind the American War Between the States over African slavery and
the 2nd
> European Civil War of 1939-1945.)
>
>
>
> Clearly, Evola's views on race stand alone and have had virtually no
> influence since they were published over 60 years ago. So, I try to
read
> this booklet more for the "mentality and sensibility", since
currently
> discussions on race are marginalized, since they cause too much
strife when
> brought into the public forum. If Evola's views find a way around
that, then
> they may be considered of value.
>
>
>
> To begin this section, Evola quotes some definitions of race. He
mentions
> the anthropological approach which attempted a positivist view of
race by
> the use of various measurements to define race. Evola next
distinguishes
> between the "gene", which is a potentiality, and the "phenotype",
which is
> the external form taken by the being, under the influence of the
> environment. He then disproves what we would call Lamarckianism in
order to
> emphasize that race is genetic or hereditary. Evola already wants
to go
> beyond a strictly biological understanding, since he sees the
essence of
> race in a "style, in a way of being." So race, in his view,
expresses itself
> not only through the physical characteristics, but also in the
various
> psychic qualities or gifts. Therefore, a group with a
certain 'style'
> constitutes a race.