In 'Revolt against the Modern World' and in other texts, Evola
acknowledges willingly that the Church, from the Early Middle Ages to
the XIXth century, was a reactionary force which prevented, together
with the representatives of 'temporal power', the most pernicious
influences from pouring into a society whose hierarchic structure it
inherited directly from Rome. For instance, it tried to prevent
Galilee's heliocentric theory from taking away from the common man
the natural sense of centrality which the feeling of being at the
centre of the universe gave him and, therefore, his sound 'ego' ;
Giordano Bruno's cabalistic-inspired views - held as a godsend by
some American neo-pagan circles - from laying the foundations of
practical materialism ("everything which can be measured must be
measured ; everything which can be weighed must be weighed" - this
statement, which, from a Christian point of view, can be rightly
called 'satanic', and which, as far as we are concerned, we'd rather
call 'demonic' - this statement, which summarises the whole 'spirit'
of the modern world, doesn't prevent those neo-pagan circles from
lecturing us on Bruno's "over-powering sense of the divine" and from
drawing our attention to the fact that he "considered Aristotle one
to be pitied as a hopeless pedant who could not comprehend occult
truths and was unable to grasp "profound magic""! Meaning : "was
unable to grasp cabalistic magic"). Yet, simultaneously, from the
Early Middle Ages, the Church allowed the lower clergy to 'educate'
the people, to teach them how to read and how to count, that is,
ultimately, to teach them how to measure and how to weigh.
There is a river in the countryside. One day, someone decides to
divert its course. Then, someone else decides to build a dam, yet not
using the proper material. One day or another, the dam is bound to
fissure and to give way, making what was originally peaceful waters
into a destructive torrent which demolishes everything in its path.
The Church may have been that dam.
For a while, the Church was able to silence by legal means and/or by
force the representatives of the forces of subversion, but it didn't
have the means necessary to neutralise on a large scale the
pernicious influences which they were the bearers of. To dismiss, to
drive away, to chase away the elements and the entities at work on
the 'subtle plane', the Church had only prayers. The Roman festival
of the Lupercalia, which was celebrated each year on February the
15th near the cave of Lupercal on the Palatine, was meant to purify
new life in the Spring. Here, 'to purify' must be given its full and
almost concrete meaning, a meaning which, obviously, Pope Gelasius,
of whom Evola speaks in 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', didn't grasp,
when he decided to replace this 'pagan festival' by the feast of St.
Valentine, which was first declared to be on February the 14th in 496.
To go back over the problem on which Evola didn't take a stand, it
seems to us that the equation is very simple. Cleansed from all the
anti-Aryan and emasculating elements it contains and from most of its
current representatives, Christianity, which, at the time it
appeared, was a providential religion for all the pariahs of the
Roman empire, could still be the form of worship of the people in a
society based on European traditional principles. As for the élite,
as such, it couldn't but refer to pre-Christian Aryan forms of
worship.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:
>
>
> "Is anyone able and willing to clarify what the relations between
> such
> forms and Christianity should obviously be?"
>
> Some points need to be clarified because it is hardly clear any more
> what Christianity is. As Evola points out, many who consider
themselves
> non-Christian nevertheless hold onto Christian values. Conversely,
many
> Christians have absorbed Marxist ideology, oblivious to the
> contradictions. Then there are the rapidly growing degenerate and
> unhistorical forms, such as Christian Zionism in the USA and
> Pentecostalism in Africa.
>
>
>
> I think it is clear, however, that to approach this question, we
need to
> bracket any consideration as to whether the events in Galilee and
> Jerusalem 2000 years ago actually transpired and hold the
significance
> attributed to them. The issue is rather what sort of spirit gives
rise
> to such a system, and conversely, what sort of spirit, or
worldview, is
> created in its adherents.
>
>
>
> In defence of the Church against Evola's withering critique, it has,
> until recently, always been a reactionary force maintaining and
> supporting a social hierarchy. The last time Europe was unified and
had
> a more or less traditional society was in the Middle Ages. Even if
the
> Church tried to dominate the spiritual realm through its dogmas, it
is
> utterly unrealistic to expect all the population, especially of
lower
> castes, to achieve some sort of gnosis. That is not to deny the
> possibility of a solar and virile spirituality in spite of that –
> rather than being restricted to some elite "mannerbund", we are
> inclined to Chesterton's characterisation of a widespread virility:
> "There was far more courage to the square mile in the Middle Ages,
> when no king had a standing army, but every man had a bow or sword."
>
>
>
> [essere continuato]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of evola_as_he_is
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:37 AM
> To:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Evola and 'Aryan Christianity'
>
>
>
>
> True, there hasn't been a historical record of the reversal of the
> degeneration of castes. That remark is most important, even in a
> society which is no longer structured according to castes or
estates,
> whose justification and necessity the blind and the one-eyed who
lead
> the blind don't and can't understand.
>
> Evola's project of heathen restoration may appear to us as
> unachievable today, eight decades after it was devised and
> formulated, as the one-eyed are in office in what's left of Western
> states and the blind proliferate under their very eye. In the 1920's
> and in the 1930's, however, there were grounds for thinking that
some
> of the conditions necessary for the awakening of race, through which
> he goes in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', were present or about
> to be gathered, for this awakening to occur in Italy, in Germany and
> in the other European countries which had chosen a Fascist
> orientation, and in which day-to-day life was not a pornography, as
> is the case now. One of the main conditions is a "State conceived
of,
> neither as an abstract legal entity, nor as a lifeless regulating
> superstructure created by human necessities, but as a force to a
> certain extent transcendent which shapes, articulates, organises
from
> above the social whole, as an entelechy, that is, a vital organising
> and formative principle". 'Men among the Ruins' and 'To Ride the
> Tiger' work on the statement of fact that that condition, like the
> others, is no longer present and draw the consequences from it,
> chiefly on a personal level : they address only the 'differentiated
> man'.
>
> The missing link, or rather the soft underbelly of Evola's views on
> heathenism and on a possible restoration of heathenism, doesn't lie
> in its criticism of so-called neo-Pagans nor in in its criticism of
> Christianity as Church and as faith, but in the positive counterpart
> he gave of it. In a chapter of 'Sintesi' which follows
considerations
> on neo-paganism closely akin to those which are found in the article
> called 'Against the Neo-Pagans', he makes the following
> statement : "(...) we do not think we have indicated, here, any
> particular solution to those new renovating currents who are looking
> or will be looking for new forms of spirituality, nor do we think we
> have clarified the relations between such forms and Christianity".
> This statement is all the more unexpected as the least one can say
is
> that Evola is used to clarifying any question he tackles and to give
> orientations.
>
> Is anyone able and willing to clarify what the relations between
such
> forms and Christianity should obviously be?
>