- 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
is NOT meant as a form of promotion (from my side). - The musical intro, a dull pop song whose theme is so reminiscent of a
song called 'Flieger' that one of these bands has manifestly
plagiarised the other, sets the tone of the interview.
No doubt, the current European suffers from xenophilia - an
unreasonable love for extra-European peoples as such - and, as a
result, from autophobia - an extreme dislike of oneself both as an
individual and as a member of the white race ; the political schemers,
the Nomenklatura (called by Faye the "political élite"(sic)) currently
in charge of Europe are the "accomplices", or rather the lackeys, of
those who have been pulling the strings behind the scene of
extra-European massive immigration, and with whom the 'European
intelligentsia' collaborates most willingly ; Europe is undergoing an
Africanisation and an Asianisation. All this is true, but it is only a
statement of facts, and the reasons put forward to explain current
European masochism do not go beyond the psychological level, beyond
which the true motives of this 'masochism' are found, and beyond which
very few people seem to be able to rise : 'Le Règne de la quantité'
may have been read in New Right circles. - It has not been understood.
The interviewer takes a certain malicious pleasure in carrying out
this analysis on a psycho-analytical level. As once pointed out by
Evola, even though Freudian frames of reference are inadequate to
account for man in the higher sense, they still apply to the vast
majority of current men.
On the whole, the content of this interview is typical of the
shortcomings and of the narrow-mindedness of the so-called New Right.
Apart from the simplistic views on the reasons for the degeneracy of
the white race, most of the stereotypes cultivated by so-called
far-right circles 'for internal purposes' since the mid-1990's are
dwelled on relentlessly, the emphasis being on the effects, and not on
the causes, which may not be seen clearly : Islam is the main enemy,
the European civilisation, which it has been trying to destroy, is
based on "freedom of speech, laicity, female emancipation, and
monotheism", the cultural and economic war launched by the United
States of America is still "less serious" than the Muslim peril, they
played Islam against Europe but, - fortunately - they have realised
their mistake, an 'urban guerrilla' is bound to break out as a result
of tensions between European natives and extra-Europeans in Europe,
etc. P. Buchanan's writings have been read and fully understood.
The interview starts on the right foot, in that the problem is
approached from the racial perspective, only to lapse into the usual
confusion as it goes on : a 'Muslim gene' has been discovered. Thus,
Islam is no longer a religion, but a race. At this point, it is worth
noting that one has to wait the 49th minute of the interview to hear
the word 'Jew'.
The 49th minute.
In the meantime, Faye has published a book called 'La nouvelle
question juive' (Les Editions du Lore, 2007), in which he is reckless
enough to speak of the "inanity of revisionist theories" and of the
"political stupidity of revisionist historians". Needless to say,
Robert Faurisson, one of the very few actually standing among the
ruins without having necessarily read Evola, has quietened him down.
As soon as the English translation of Mutti's article on 'Islam and
Evola' is published on this list, another fanciful claim by Faye,
according to which "The Muslim mentality is the most racist
mentality", will be addressed appropriately, by means of an essay
written by an anti-racist scholar on Islam and the race question, and
which, unintentionally, shows that Islam was designed for the
raceless, faceless, rootless, man of the Kali-yuga.
Faye's interview ends with these profound, or rather deep, lyrics of a
French ex-teeny-girl : "Dis-lui, toi, que je l'aime/ Ou programme-moi
sur IBM."
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 RightI 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
- 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:>
be clear
> In order to speak about a "crisis of the Right", it is important to
> about what the "Right" is. The division into Right and Left was brought
division;
> about following the French Revolution. Prior to that there was no
> 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.
that Mr.
>
>
>
> 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
> Faye's principles are not those principles. In particular, the Europe he
precisely
> wants to "save" is the Europe of free speech, secularism, women's
> liberation, in sum, the Europe of the Enlightenment. Yet that is
> the problem, not the solution, and Mr. Faye is not suggesting a
homeopathic
> remedy with a highly diluted enlightenment.
discovered
>
>
>
> The fundamental issue is that the Enlightenment claimed to have
> "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
But the
> "without qualities" and independent of every hierarchy and organic
> relationship which are viewed as evil restrictions on man's liberty.
> saner and normal Maistre, a careful observer of the human condition,
wrote
> in "Considerations on France":
know that
>
>
>
> "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
> 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."
Frenchman at
>
>
>
> A healthy organism has an identity and strives to protect it. A
> Poitiers knew he was not a Moor. A European at Lepanto knew he was not a
Belgium. Yet
> Turk. We witness a soft echo of this still in the struggle for
> 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.
rejected
>
>
>
> Mr. Faye turns to science and biology for answers, again a solution
> 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
would rise
> higher elements yet provide coherence and order for the lower classes.
>
>
>
> Mr. Faye also invokes Rousseau's General Will, which Faye believe
> 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?
vote, a
> Remember Vendée and the Gulags. In a "democracy", with one man, one
> woman's vote counts the same as a man's, a Frenchman's the same as an
financial
> Algerian's how can a General Will arise from that?
>
>
>
> The "Future of the Intellectual", as Maurras saw there is great
> 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.
Bolshevism.
>
>
>
> There must be a "rejection of the French Revolution and all that arises
> directly or indirectly from it." There must be a rejection of
> There must be a rejection of the Enlightenment and Liberalism:
[mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> 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
RE: the English translation of Mutti's article on 'Islam and Evola'
Claudio Mutti has posted “Islam in the eyes of Julius Evola” (in English) on his web site:
http://www.claudiomutti.com/index.php?url=6&imag=1&id_news=130
Is that the one you are referring to?
- Fuad 'Ali' Salah, the leader during the 1980's of a terrorist group
calling itself the 'Comité de soutien avec les prisonniers politiques
et arabes et du Moyen-Orient', planted in Paris in 1985-86 a number of
bombs which killed 15 people and injured 200, with assistance from
both Hizbullah and an Iranian diplomat. During his trial in the early
1990's, he found nothing better to do than to quote 'at length' from
'Revolt against the Modern World'.
In a 1993 issue of 'Eléments, a magazine linked to the 'Nouvelle
Droite', Rachid Benaissa, a sympathiser of the notorious FIS (Islamic
Salvation Front), showed that he too had read 'Revolt against the
Modern World'.
Now that 'Islam in the eyes of Julius Evola' (this is an excellent
title) is available in English, some can realise, provided that they
have a basic knowledge of that religion, that we were not exaggerating
when we said some time ago that Evola's knowledge of Islam was
limited, if not superficial, at least artificial, in short : bookish.
R. Guénon and J. Evola corresponded for almost twenty years, without
the former having ever showed any particular interest in Islam.
Likewise, in the 1960's, J. Evola had a correspondence with T.
Burckhardt, an expert of Islam, during which the issue of Islam was
never addressed, not once. Not more than ten Koranic passages are
quoted in his whole work, most of them being related to the notion of
'inner Jihad', and, as pointed out by Mutti himself, he misquoted one
of the two only Muslim maxims to which he ever referred. According to
J. Evola, "The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of
the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful", when the text says
the opposite : "On the day of Last Judgment, the savants' ink will be
weighed with the blood of martyrs, who gave their lives for the sake
of Allah, and the ink will weigh heavier." By 'savants', what is
meant, in the Muslim context, is the Ulema, the doctors of the faith,
of the religious law, that is, (a part of) the Muslim clergy ; in the
Chinese context, the scribes, to whom the practice of appointing men
to office on the basis of academic qualifications can be traced back
for some two thousand years ; in the Bolshevik context, the 'experts',
with whom, according to various quite insightful studies (see, for
instance, 'Plato and Lenin' :
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm/), the
'philosopher-kings' have some features in common.
At this point, let us bear in mind that 'Revolt against the Modern
World', as previously emphasised, was proofread by R. Guénon, and, as
a result, is bound to feel the effect of the latter's views and of the
'traditionalist' belief in a multi-racial primordial tradition. Those
who are familiar with the work of these authors cannot but be under
the impression that, in 'Revolt against the Modern World', R. Guénon
often put words into J. Evola's mouth. For instance, the assumption
that, in the Kaaba, "we find again the theme of the "stone," or the
symbol of the "center" is directly derived from 'Le Roi du Monde', in
which it is more or less regarded as a solar symbol, when any stone,
especially if black, was considered by the ancients as a symbol of the
Great Mother. Certainly, "the Kaaba, with its symbolism of the center,
is a pre-Islamic location and has even older origins that cannot be
dated accurately." The word Evola was looking for here is Al-lat, the
most important deity in pre-islam's Mecca. She was also called Khubel.
The word 'Kible' (Qiblah) still designates the prayer direction
towards Ka'ba (Kabe) as a continuing symbol of the goddess
(http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/fem4.htm), who was one of the
three daughters of Allah, a god which was already prominent in
Pre-Islamic Arabia. Herodotus says of the Arabs : "They deem no other
to be gods save Dionysus and Heavenly Aphrodite ... they call Dionysus
Orotalt and Aphrodite Alilat. In Sumeria Allatu or 'goddess' is an
epithet of Ereshkigal the chthonic goddess of the underworld. Like El
and al-Llah which simply means god, al-Lat 'goddess' could be
identified with many female deities, and indeed Allat is identified
with Aphrodite-Venus. (God/El אל, the patriarchal creator god
(Isra-el/struggle with god)/ Elohim [1] (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים )/Eloah, "a
god" El lah/Ilah/Allah). In short, the Kaaba's symbolism is that of
the centre. However, it is that of a feminine centre, insofar as what
is feminine can have a centre.
Mutti's article on Islam in the eyes of J. Evola is often supported by
a selective and tendentious reading of 'Revolt of the Modern World'
and of the texts gathered later in 'Metaphysics of War'.
It is selective, in that it never hints at the fact that J.Evola
repeatedly emphasised that the best part of the Koran originates in
pre-Muslim non-Arab Zoroastrian teachings, whose adepts, incidentally,
Muslims plagued, as soon as they invaded Iran, for religious and only
for religious reasons
(http://www.vohuman.org/Article/Islamic%20era%20histroy%20of%20Zoroastrians%20of%20Iran.htm),
whereas, in ancient Rome, the only reason why Christians were
persecuted, no matter how much they have liked to brag about their
so-called 'martyrdom' since then, was strictly due to their sneaky
attempt to instrumentalise alien religious beliefs to undermine Rome
socially, politically, racially, and spiritually.
At times, it is even tendentious. For example, it is stated that
"Islam is independent from both Judaism and Christianity", and it is
so seriously. Given the enormity of this statement, we are looking
forward for it to be justified with rock-solid arguments based on the
most objective examination of the core of this religion and, quite
frankly, of an aspect of it which would have escaped our attention.
Instead, what we have is an excerpt from 'Revolt against the Modern
World', in which it is recalled that Islam "claimed independence from
both Judaism and Christianity" (of course, it did, just as
Christianity has always claimed independence from both Judaism and
Islam). Now, if everything Islam claims to be, it actually was, it
would already be known.
Moreover, the first sentence of this excerpt points out that Islam is
not independent from both Judaism and Christianity : " As in the case
of priestly Judaism, the center in Islam also consisted of the Law and
Tradition."
At other times, Mutti follows in Evola's footsteps indiscriminatingly.
"Finally, he quotes, Islam presents a traditional completeness, since
the shariah and the sunna, that is, the exoteric law and tradition,
have their complement not in a vague mysticism, but in full-fledged
initiatory organisations (turuq) that are characterised by an esoteric
teaching (tawil) and by the metaphysical doctrine of the Supreme
Identity (tawhid)." The problem is not to know whether or not Islam is
a tradition, but to determine the nature of this tradition and to see
whether it is compatible with ours. The problem is not to know whether
or not a given religion is complemented by initiatory organisations,
but to establish the precise nature of this particular initiation -
after all, Papuans still have theirs, and, if you participate in one
of the various Tibetan retreats currently organised throughout Europe
every month, you'll receive tens of initiations a day.
The precise incompatibility between Islam and our tradition is showed,
for instance, in 'Islam and the Question of Race'
(http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/race.htm/), written by an
anti-racist who rightly sees in Islam an effective means to get rid of
races and of race itself once and for all .
One more thing for now : it should be clear that J. Evola never
claimed to be an expert of Islam.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:>
English) on
> RE: the English translation of Mutti's article on 'Islam and Evola'
>
>
>
> Claudio Mutti has posted "Islam in the eyes of Julius Evola" (in
- Which passage of Mutti's article, in which none of Evola's views on
Islam are criticised, are you referring to?
There are so many sects and sub-sects in Islam that it can cater for
anybody attracted to it and give any 'truth seeker' the impression
that he or she is right.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@...> wrote: There is a significant hadith of which Evola uses – according to Mutti – an unreliable translation.
Evola’s version: “The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful.”
Mutti’s version: “On the day of Last Judgment, the savant’s ink will be weighed with the blood of martyrs, who gave their lives of the sake of Allah, and the ink will weigh heavier.”
Quite the opposite of Evola’s and it may have affected Evola’s judgment to some extent.
It seems, too, that Mutti might be misrepresenting Evola’s actual views when Evola concedes that there may still have been initiatic organisations within Islam.
Evola actually writes (with regard to Guénon), “but to people who do not want to turn themselves into Muslims and Orientals, Guénon’s personal path has very little to offer.” Apparently leaving open the question as to whether an Occidental can even turn himself into an Oriental. Nevertheless, this is hardly the path recommended by Evola.
From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of evola_as_he_is
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:51 PM
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Mutti: Islam in the eyes of Julius Evola
Which passage of Mutti's article, in which none of Evola's views on
Islam are criticised, are you referring to?
There are so many sects and sub-sects in Islam that it can cater for
anybody attracted to it and give any 'truth seeker' the impression
that he or she is right.
- right near the end, Mutti says:
"We take this opportunity to note that Evola probably mistook the Twelver-Imam
Shi'a movement as a particular branch of the Ismaeli movement, and such an
oversight would be truly excessive, especially coming from an "insider". In the
same way, Evola seems to think that the Imam is "the supreme chief of the Order"
as much in the Ismaeli perspective as in that of the "so-called Twelver-Imam";
and this would also be a significant inaccuracy, since for the Twelver-Imam Shi'a,
the Imam, as a successor of the Prophet, is not only the supreme chief of an
Order, but of the entire community.
Nonetheless, that is of importance here. What matters, rather, is that according
to Evola an initiatic connection in the present epoch is still possible,
provided one turns "to the Islamic world and the East."
-- they didn't even bother to proof-read this translation - he means "of NO
importance here." - Ok, it's a criticism, but a most reverent, a most prudent
("probably"), almost embarrassed one. Mutti, as a Muslim, as an
insider, as a scholar, is expected, on fundamental points such as that
one, to offer more : clarification.
How can someone reach the conclusion that "Nonetheless, that is of
[no] importance here. What matters, rather, is that according to Evola
an initiatic connection in the present epoch is still possible,
provided one turns "to the Islamic world and the East.", when, as
recalled by T. Ciopa, Evola stated that "(...) to people who do not
want to turn themselves into Muslims and Orientals, Guénon's personal
path has very little to offer."
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@...> wrote:>
Twelver-Imam
> right near the end, Mutti says:
>
> "We take this opportunity to note that Evola probably mistook the
> Shi'a movement as a particular branch of the Ismaeli movement, and
such an
> oversight would be truly excessive, especially coming from an
"insider". In the
> same way, Evola seems to think that the Imam is "the supreme chief
of the Order"
> as much in the Ismaeli perspective as in that of the "so-called
Twelver-Imam";
> and this would also be a significant inaccuracy, since for the
Twelver-Imam Shi'a,
> the Imam, as a successor of the Prophet, is not only the supreme
chief of an
> Order, but of the entire community.
that according
>
> Nonetheless, that is of importance here. What matters, rather, is
> to Evola an initiatic connection in the present epoch is still
possible,
> provided one turns "to the Islamic world and the East."
means "of NO
>
> -- they didn't even bother to proof-read this translation - he
- In his article 'Pourquoi j'ai converti à l'Islam?' (published in
Ãléments, Spring 1985, n.53), Mutti writes about the process of his
conversion:
'I rejected the absurd chimera of an adherence to the obsolete
traditional forms of pre-Christian Europe; I excluded a number of
traditional paths which, like Buddhism, are practically destined to an
oriental humanity (sic), despite their proclaimed universality, some
of their forms (Zen) and the exceptional cases of Europeans adhering
to them. Thus remained Christianity and Islam.'
So Mutti excluded a number of paths because they are 'practically
destined to an oriental humanity' (he cites Buddhism. Had he read the
second chapter of 'The Doctrine of Awakening'?) yet he is willing to
accept Islam 'provided one turns to the Islamic world and the East.'
Can someone explain that?
Since Christianity was excluded, Islam seemed to him 'an obligatory
choice.'
Indeed, he 'thus rebuilt, bit by bit, a mosaic of an unsuspected
European Islam which had one of its eponymous heroes in the figure of
one of two of the Prophet's Indo-European companions, the Byzantime
Suhayb ar-Rumi. I discovered an Islamic European which did not stop at
the borders of Spain and meridional France and Sicily, but which had
also expanded to Corsica, Sardinia and other Italian territories. Etc.'
After listing the names of a number of Europeans who adopted Islam
(Guénon, Valsan, Burckhardt, L.F. Clauss, etc.), he writes about his
conversion: 'this adhesion, far from making me lose my European
quality, made me reclaim, to the fullest extent, a heritage which I
would not have been able to recuperate otherwise.'
'By passing from the theory of Tradition to the effective practice of
what appeared to me as the only yet accessible complete traditional
path, I also replied to an inner exigency for coherence. In seeking to
integrate myself as much as possible to an existential rhythm formed
by the daily rites of Islam, I began to withdraw a part of my life
from profane practice.'
In one of the last articles in 'Reflections of the Heart', Burckhardt
writes that it is impossible to have an authentic spiritual connection
outside of the major revealed religions in the world. Like Mutti, he
arrives by 'elimination' at Islam. But, as already pointed out, "there
are so many sects and sub-sects in Islam [and other traditions] that
it can cater for anybody attracted to it and give any 'truth seeker'
the impression that he or she is right."
The question imposes itself: to what extent is an initiatic connection
necessary? And to what other extent can Islam be a choice for Europeans?
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote: - Would it be too much to describe Mutti's article as a half-failed
attempt to reconcile Evola and Islam?
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote: - I think the failure is Evola's rather than Mutti's. I mean, Mutti cannot be
blamed for anything except excessive reverence for the supposed
'Traditionalists', and for taking his queue from his impression of them.
The underlying logic of all this is not at all spiritual in my view but
realpolitik. Guènon must be assumed to have served some function, if only as a
humble conduit of two-way gossip, within the overall scheme of French
colonialism in North Africa. This realpolitik of alliance between the erstwhile
'western christendom' and 'islam' is supposed to be based on an occult subtext
related to the chivaric orders of feudal societies, whether christian or muslim,
but this subtext remains somewhat fantasmatic. One might as well discover it in
'Hakim Bey'! - Speaking of which:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorish_Orthodox_Church_of_America
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@...> wrote:>
cannot be
> I think the failure is Evola's rather than Mutti's. I mean, Mutti
> blamed for anything except excessive reverence for the supposed
only as a
> 'Traditionalists', and for taking his queue from his impression of them.
>
> The underlying logic of all this is not at all spiritual in my view but
> realpolitik. Gu�non must be assumed to have served some function, if
> humble conduit of two-way gossip, within the overall scheme of French
the erstwhile
> colonialism in North Africa. This realpolitik of alliance between
> 'western christendom' and 'islam' is supposed to be based on an
occult subtext
> related to the chivaric orders of feudal societies, whether
christian or muslim,
> but this subtext remains somewhat fantasmatic. One might as well
discover it in
--Would it be too much to describe Mutti's article as a half-failed
--attempt to reconcile Evola and Islam?Evola’s immense learning ranged over the religions and mythologies of the world, which he often used to make specific points. For example, it could be possible to “reconcile” Evola and Zoroastrianism with some justification, but he never called for mass conversions. In other cases, his judgment seems somewhat odd if his thought is carried beyond the limits he intended. For example, he thought highly of some aspects of the Aztecs (probably the result of never having met one), but does that reconcile Evola with human sacrifice?
The case of Guénon is somewhat complex in that he never “converted” to Islam as that act is commonly understood. In fact, he was initiated into a Sufi order years before his move to Egypt and his overt life as a Muslim. Thus anyone today who approaches matters in the opposite sequence, that is by first converting to Islam and then hoping to locate an initiatory centre, is likely to be disappointed.
As for “European” Muslims … my ancestral home is named “Salemi”, clearly a word of Arabic origin. However, in an age dominated by clear thinking men, it never took root. So even if Evola does find some things to admire in Islam, which may even be suitable to the Oriental and African, for the European, it nevertheless involves a betrayal of the Western “spirit”.
- Wishful thinking is one thing, intellectual dishonesty is quite another.
Many more or less gross attempts by Arab Muslim circles have been made
to hijack Evola's work, but
http://forum.europeans.ws/europeans/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=137 is
going too far, and, to our knowledge, is unprecedented.
First, we are told that "In The Manifesto of Verona, Evola expressed
his "absolute respect for those peoples of the Muslim countries, like
Egypt, which are civil and rationally organized." (Claudio Mutti,
"Evola e Nasser," www.centrostudilaruna.it/evolaenasser.html)."
The 'Manifesto of Verona' was the founding text of the Republic of
Salò (1943), of which J. Evola, who, in his 'Diario (1943-1944),
expressed disagreement with the socialist turn taken by Fascism in
these years, was not a signer, to start with.
Then, that, In "The emancipation of Islam is one road towards
socialism" (Meridiano d'Italia, March 3, 1957; cited in I testi del
Meridiano d'Italia, Padua: Edizioni di Ar, 2002, pp. 217-219), Evola
praised the Islamic resistance to Zionism and imperialism. He extolled
the virtues of Nasser's Egypt, including expelling the British from
the Suez Canal, nationalization of foreign companies, providing asylum
to European refugees from the Third Reich, Vichy France, and others
who fought for the nationalist cause.
While Evola viewed the Nasserite cause as "a true and just pan-Arab
socialism based on the spiritual foundations of Islam," he bridged the
ideological gap between Nasser and the Islamic movements, and examined
the values they shared and the directions both sought to move the Arab
world were closer than differences."
When we first read 'L'emancipazione dell'Islam è una strada verso il
communismo' in 2003, nothing of this could be found in it. We have
just read it again. It is still not there. The words 'Zionism', 'Third
Reich', 'Vichy', are not even mentioned in the text. Evola's actual
views on Nasser are the opposite of those which are ascribed falsely
to him : "With Kemal's Turkey, Nasser's Egypt is, among these
countries, the one which follows most the modern Western ideal of the
secular State, which is in stark contradiction with the Muslim tradition."
Finally, Evola supposedly "praised "orthodox Islam", which was "still
defended from Saudi Arabia and the organization of the Muslim
Brotherhood."
Evola did not praise anything at all here. He merely noted that
'L'Islam ortodosso è ancora difeso dall'Arabia Saudita e
dall'organizzazione dei "Fratelli musulmani", organizzazione che però
in Egitto è stata proibita per la sua dichiarata avversione al nuovo
regime e che d'altronde nel suo programma attuale ha incluso idee
sociali riformiste e radicali assai spinte, per cui in Syria si deve
ad essa la formazione di un "Fronte islamico socialista."
http://msecchi.wordpress.com/2007/10/ - As far as we know it has never been recorded whether or not he actually did "formally" convert or not. One could assume that he did because a Moslem father would never give his daughter in marriage to a European, only if he had become a Moslem.
It would be also assumed that no one with the "capability" of giving an initiation would only give it to one practicing the religion and therefore the sequence would be first conversion and then initiation.
The initiation that Guenon received from Aqueli is quite dubious and taking in consideration the dedication at the beginning of the"Symbolism of the Cross" it does seem that Guenon had quite strong Moslem connections.
Guenon's outlook on the subject of initiation is very interesting but unlike his other writings, sources, for the most part, are missing.
But then again Guenon was a Mason, had "Masonic"initiation{whatever that entails} and was quite adamant that it was a traditional form.
The subject of initiation and the "so-called" "Primordial Tradition" presents more questions than it answers.
If our memory serves us correctly in a piece by F.Schuon called "Gleans on RG", he quotes or states that Guenon considered all the traditions are an aberration of the Primordial Tradition. The obvious question is that how can any "tradition" whether it be primordial or not manifest without some kind of representative vessel?----- Original Message ----
From: Toni Ciopa <hyperborean@...>
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2007 6:02:08 PM
Subject: RE: [evola_as_he_is] Mutti: Islam in the eyes of Julius Evola--Would it be too much to describe Mutti's article as a half-failed
--attempt to reconcile Evola and Islam?Evola’s immense learning ranged over the religions and mythologies of the world, which he often used to make specific points. For example, it could be possible to “reconcile” Evola and Zoroastrianism with some justification, but he never called for mass conversions. In other cases, his judgment seems somewhat odd if his thought is carried beyond the limits he intended. For example, he thought highly of some aspects of the Aztecs (probably the result of never having met one), but does that reconcile Evola with human sacrifice?
The case of Guénon is somewhat complex in that he never “converted” to Islam as that act is commonly understood. In fact, he was initiated into a Sufi order years before his move to Egypt and his overt life as a Muslim. Thus anyone today who approaches matters in the opposite sequence, that is by first converting to Islam and then hoping to locate an initiatory centre, is likely to be disappointed.
As for “European” Muslims … my ancestral home is named “Salemi”, clearly a word of Arabic origin. However, in an age dominated by clear thinking men, it never took root. So even if Evola does find some things to admire in Islam, which may even be suitable to the Oriental and African, for the European, it nevertheless involves a betrayal of the Western “spirit”.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. - I am deeply disappointed to discover within two hops of the wikipedia article on
the moorish temple, THIS:
http://www.morc.info/MORC_Link-Page.html
with the zionist hasbara "world war 4 report" in pole position! - There is no need to try to "reconcile" Evola with Islam, for the
simple reason that he never parted from Islam, and he never parted
from Islam for the simple reason that he never adhered to it. He tried
to describe it as objectively and as accurately as he could, and, as
showed by Mutti's article, his judgment on it was rather positive. In
perfect harmony with the early Buddhist precept according to which
what is positive for some people can turn out to be negative for
others and what is negative for some people can turn out to be
negative for others, however, he wisely and discriminatingly did not
recommend it to Westerners.
It has always been our understanding that, to be able to become a
Sufi, conversion to Islam is a prerequisite, and René Guénon, or
rather Abdel Wahêd Yahia, is no different in this respect, no matter
when his conversion took place, whether it was before he was initiated
to Sufism (1912) or in 1934, when he married F. Hanem, one of the
daughters of sheikh Mohammed Ibrahim.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:>
of the
> --Would it be too much to describe Mutti's article as a half-failed
> --attempt to reconcile Evola and Islam?
>
> Evola's immense learning ranged over the religions and mythologies
> world, which he often used to make specific points. For example, it
could be
> possible to "reconcile" Evola and Zoroastrianism with some
justification,
> but he never called for mass conversions. In other cases, his
judgment seems
> somewhat odd if his thought is carried beyond the limits he
intended. For
> example, he thought highly of some aspects of the Aztecs (probably the
human
> result of never having met one), but does that reconcile Evola with
> sacrifice?
to Islam
>
> The case of Guénon is somewhat complex in that he never "converted"
> as that act is commonly understood. In fact, he was initiated into a
Sufi
> order years before his move to Egypt and his overt life as a Muslim.
Thus
> anyone today who approaches matters in the opposite sequence, that is by
centre, is
> first converting to Islam and then hoping to locate an initiatory
> likely to be disappointed.
clearly a
>
> As for "European" Muslims my ancestral home is named "Salemi",
> word of Arabic origin. However, in an age dominated by clear
thinking men,
RE:
It has always been our understanding that, to be able to become a
Sufi, conversion to Islam is a prerequisite, and René Guénon, or
rather Abdel Wahêd Yahia, is no different in this respect, no matter
when his conversion took place, whether it was before he was initiated
to Sufism (1912) or in 1934, when he married F. Hanem, one of the
daughters of sheikh Mohammed Ibrahim.
My statement was precisely this: [Guénon] never “converted” to Islam as that act is commonly understood.
As commonly understood, conversion is the passage from one exoteric form to another and involves a change of belief as well as behaviour.
Esoterically, conversion indicates an “intellectual metamorphosis” by which the “being passes from human thought to divine comprehension.” If one has already undergone such an intellectual metamorphosis, then the particular exterior form is merely a matter of expedience, and usually means following local customs. “Generally speaking, anyone who has an understanding of the unity of traditions … is necessarily ‘unconvertible’ to anything whatsoever.”
What follows are Guénon’s own words from “Initiation and Spiritual Realization”, which is consistent with my paraphrase.
“Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and contingent change, whether arising simply from the moral domain … Contrary to what takes place in conversion, nothing here implies the attribution of the superiority of one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what one might call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from simple individual preference…”
Hardly a very “devout” conversion. Now, he either deceived his Sufi masters for “reasons of spiritual expediency” in order to gain an initiation--which is doubtful, or they were in accord with his views.
Mutti doesn’t appear to understand much of this.
- Sayed Muhammad al Naquib al-Attas
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Muhammad_Naquib_al-Attas), one of
the foremost representatives of traditional Islamic sciences and
metaphysics, wrote, will full awareness of traditionalist doctrine,
what could be seen as the most thorough, coherent and orthodox Islamic
reply to date to Guénon's 'spiritual expediency' and Schuon's
'transcendent unity of religions':
(I apologise for the length of the citation. But I think it is
necessary so as to cross the t's and dot the i's, once and for all,
with respect to the traditional Islamic view vis-Ã -vis traditionalist
doctrine).
The Nature of God understood in Islam is not the same as the
conceptions of God understood in the various religious traditions of
the world; nor is it the same as the conceptions of God understood in
Greek and Hellenistic philosophical tradition; nor as the conceptions
of God understood in Western philosophical or scientific tradition;
nor in that of Occidental and Oriental mystical traditions. The
apparent similarities that may be found between their various
conceptions of God with the nature of God understood in Islam cannot
be interpreted as evidence of identity of the One Universal God in
their various conceptions of the nature of God; for each and every one
of them serves and belongs to a difference conceptual system, which
necessarily renders the conception as a whole or they super super
system to be dissimilar with one another. Nor is there a 'transcendent
unity of religions', if by 'unity' is meant 'oneness' or 'sameness';
and if by 'unity' is not meant 'oneness' or 'sameness', then there is
plurality or dissimilarity of religions even at the level of
transcendence. If it is conceded that there is plurality or
dissimilarity at that level, and that by 'unity' is meant
'interconnectedness of parts that constitute a whole', so that the
unity is the interconnection of the plurality or dissimilarity of
religions as of parts constituting a whole, then it follows that at
the level of ordinary existence, in which mankind is subject to the
limitations of humanity and the material universe,, any one religion
is incomplete in itself, is in itself inadequate to realise its
purpose, and can only realise its purpose, which is true submission to
the One Universal God without associating Him with any partner, rival,
or lie, at the level of transcendence. But religion is meant to
realise its purpose precisely at the level of existence in which
mankind is subject to the limitations of humanity and the material
universe, and no when mankind is not subject to these limitations as
the term 'transcendent' conveys. If 'transcendent' is meant to refer
to an ontological condition not included under any of the ten
categories, God is, strictly speaking, not the God of religion (i.e.
ilah) in the sense that there could be such a thing as a 'unity' of
religions at that level. At that level God is recognise as rabb, not
as ilah; and recognising Him as rabb does not necessarily imply
oneness or sameness in teh proper acknowledgement of the truth that is
recognise, since Iblis [Satan/Lucifer] also recognise God as rabb and
yet did not properly acknowledge Him, Indeed, all of Adam's progeny
have already recognised Him as rabb at that level. But mankind's
recognition of Him as such is not true unless followed by proper
acknowledgement at the level in which He is known as ilah. And proper
acknowledgement at the level in which He is known as ilah consists in
not associating Him with any partner, rival, or life, and in
submitting to Him in the manner and form approved by Him and shown by
His sent Prophets. If 'transcendent' is meant to refer to a
psychological condition at the level of experience and consciousness
which 'excels' or 'surpasses' that of the masses among mankind,then
the 'unity' that is experienced and made conscious of at the level of
transcendent is not of religions, but of religious experience and
consciousness, which is arrived at by the relatively few individuals
only among mankind. But religion is meant to realise its purpose for
the generality of mankind; and mankind as a whole can never be at the
level of transcendence for there to be a unity of religions at that
level. Then if it is denied that the unity at that level if the
interconnection of the plurality of dissimilarity of religions as of
parts constituting a whole, rather that every one of the religions at
the level of ordinary existence is not a part of a whole, but is a
whole in itself--then the 'unity' that is meant is 'oneness' or
'sameness' not really of religions, but of the God of religions at the
level of transcendence (i.e. esoteric), implying thereby that at the
level of ordinary existence (i.e. exoteric), and despite the plurality
and diversity of religions, each religion is adequate and valid in its
own limited way, each authentic and conveying limiting through equal
truth. The notion of plurality of truth of equal validity in the
plurality and diversity of religions is perhaps aligned to the
statements and general conclusions of modern philosophy and science
arising from the discovery of a plurality and diversity of laws
governing the university having equal validity each in its own
cosmological system. The trend to align modern scientific discovery
concerning the systems of the universe with corresponding statements
applied to human society, cultural traditions, and values is one of
the characteristic features of modernity. The position of those who
advocate the theory of the transcendent unity of religions is based
upon the assumption that all religions, or the major religions of
mankind, are revealed religions. They assume that the universality and
transcendence of esoterism validates their theory, which they
'discovered' after having acquainted themselves with the metaphysics
of Islam. In their understanding of this metaphysics of the
transcendent unity of existence, they further assume that the
transcendent unity of religions is already implied. There is grave
error in all their assumptions, and the phrase 'transcendent unity of
religions' is misleading and perhaps meant to be so for motives other
than the truth. Their claim to belief in the transcendent unity of
religions is something suggested to them inductively by the
imagination and is derived from intellectual speculation and not from
actual experience. If this is denied, and their claim is derived from
the experience of others, then again we say that the sense of 'unity'
experienced is not of religions, but of varying degrees of individual
religious experience which does not of necessity lead to the
assumption that the religions of individuals who experienced such
'unity', have truth of equal validity as revealed religions at the
level of ordinary existence. Moreover, as already pointed out, the God
of that experience is recognised as the rabb, not the ilah of revealed
religion. And recognising Him as the rabb does not necessarily mean
that acknowledging Him in true submission follows from that
recognition, for rebellion, arrogance, and falsehood have their origin
in that very realm of transcendence. There is only one revealed
religion. It was the religion conveyed by all the earlier Prophets,
who were sent to preach the message of the revelation to their own
people in accordance with the wisdom and justice of the Divine plan to
prepare the peoples of the world for reception of the religion in its
ultimate and consummate form as a Universal Religion at the hands of
the last Prophet, who was sent to convey the message of the revelation
not only to his own people, but to mankind as a whole. The essential
message of the revelation was always the same: to recognise and
acknowledge and worship the One True and Real God (ilah) alone,
without associating Him with any partner, rival, or equal, nor
attributing a likeness to Him; and to confirm the truth preached by
the earlier Prophets as well as to confirm the final truth brought by
the last Prophet as it was confirmed by all the Prophets sent before
him. With the exception of the people of this last Prophet, through
whom the revealed religion achieved utmost perfection whose original
purity is preserved to this day, most of the peoples to whom the
earlier Prophets were sent deliberately renounced the guidance
preferring instead cultural creations and ethnic inventions of their
own, claiming these as 'religions' in imitation of revealed religion.
There is only one genuine revealed religion, and its name is given as
Islam, and the people who follow this religion are praised by God as
the best among mankind. As for some among the peoples who preferred to
follow their own and diverse forms of belief and practice described as
'religions', their realisation of the Truth is their rediscovery, by
means of guidance and sincerity of heart, of what is already clearly
manifest in Islam even at the level of ordinary existence. Only Islam
acknowledge and affirms the Unity of God absolutely without having to
arrive at the level of transcendence to do so; without confusing such
acknowledgement and affirmation with traditional forms of belief and
practice described as 'religions'; without confounding such
acknowledgement and affirmation with cultural creations and ethnic
inventions interpreted in imitation of revealed religion. Therefore
Islam does not admit of any error in the understanding of the
Revelation, and in this sense Islam is not merely a form -- it is the
essence itself of religion (din). We do not admit in the case of Islam
of a horizontal dividing line separating the exoteric from the
esoteric understanding of the Truth in religion. We maintain rather a
vertical line of continuity from exoteric to the esoteric; a vertical
line of continuity which is we identify as the Straight Path of
islam-imam-ihsan without there being any inconsistency in the three
stages of the spiritual ascent such that the Reality or transcendent
Truth that is recognise and acknowledged is in our case accessible to
many. It is futile to attempt to camouflage error in the religions, in
their respective understanding and interpretation of their scriptures
which they believe reflect the original revelation, by resorting to
the characteristics and peculiarities of difference forms of ethnicity
and symbolism, and then to explain away the symbolism by means of a
contrived and deceptive hermeneutic such that error appears as truth.
Religion consists not only of affirmation of the Unity of God
(al-tawhid), but also of the manner and form in which we verify that
affirmation as shown by His last Prophet, who confirmed, perfected and
consolidated the manner and form of affirmation and verification of
Prophets before him. This manner and form of verification is the
manner and form of submission to God. The test of true affirmations of
the Unity of God, then, is the form of submission to that God. It is
only because the form of submission enacted by the religion that
affirms the Unity of God is true to the verification of such
affirmation that that particular religion is called Islam. Islam,
then, is not merely a verbal noun signifying 'submission'; it is also
the name of a particular religion descriptive of true submission, as
well as the definition of religion: submission to God. Now the manner
and form of submission enacted in religion is definitely influenced by
the conception of God in the religion. It is therefore the conception
of God in the religion that is crucial to the correct articulation of
the form of true submission; and this conception must be adequate in
serving to describe the true nature of God, which can only be derived
from Revelation,not from ethnic or cultural tradition, nor from an
amalgamation of ethnic and cultural tradition with sacred scripture,
nor from philosophical speculation aided by the discovery of science.
(From the introduction of his magnum opus 'Prolegomena to the
Metaphysics of Islam', p. 7-12).
Sections 3, 4, and 5, from the article on al-Attas on Wikipedia are
also worth reading.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:>
as that
> RE:
> It has always been our understanding that, to be able to become a
> Sufi, conversion to Islam is a prerequisite, and Ren� Gu�non, or
> rather Abdel Wah�d Yahia, is no different in this respect, no matter
> when his conversion took place, whether it was before he was initiated
> to Sufism (1912) or in 1934, when he married F. Hanem, one of the
> daughters of sheikh Mohammed Ibrahim.
>
>
>
> My statement was precisely this: [Gu�non] never �converted� to Islam
> act is commonly understood.
form to
>
> As commonly understood, conversion is the passage from one exoteric
> another and involves a change of belief as well as behaviour.
by which
>
> Esoterically, conversion indicates an �intellectual metamorphosis�
> the �being passes from human thought to divine comprehension.� If
one has
> already undergone such an intellectual metamorphosis, then the
particular
> exterior form is merely a matter of expedience, and usually means
following
> local customs. �Generally speaking, anyone who has an understanding
of the
> unity of traditions � is necessarily �unconvertible� to anything
change,
> whatsoever.�
>
> What follows are Gu�non�s own words from �Initiation and Spiritual
> Realization�, which is consistent with my paraphrase.
>
> �Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and contingent
> whether arising simply from the moral domain � Contrary to what
takes place
> in conversion, nothing here implies the attribution of the
superiority of
> one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what
one might
> call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from
masters
> simple individual preference��
>
> Hardly a very �devout� conversion. Now, he either deceived his Sufi
> for �reasons of spiritual expediency� in order to gain an
initiation--which
- Whether he converted either formally or for "appearances sake" he still needed what only Islam could offer him and thereby became "submissive" to that path which in any case is tantamount to conversion.----- Original Message ----
From: Toni Ciopa <hyperborean@...>
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2007 8:05:24 PM
Subject: RE: [evola_as_he_is] Mutti: Islam in the eyes of Julius EvolaRE:
It has always been our understanding that, to be able to become a
Sufi, conversion to Islam is a prerequisite, and René Guénon, or
rather Abdel Wahêd Yahia, is no different in this respect, no matter
when his conversion took place, whether it was before he was initiated
to Sufism (1912) or in 1934, when he married F. Hanem, one of the
daughters of sheikh Mohammed Ibrahim.
My statement was precisely this: [Guénon] never “converted” to Islam as that act is commonly understood.
As commonly understood, conversion is the passage from one exoteric form to another and involves a change of belief as well as behaviour.
Esoterically, conversion indicates an “intellectual metamorphosis” by which the “being passes from human thought to divine comprehension.” If one has already undergone such an intellectual metamorphosis, then the particular exterior form is merely a matter of expedience, and usually means following local customs. “Generally speaking, anyone who has an understanding of the unity of traditions … is necessarily ‘unconvertible’ to anything whatsoever.”
What follows are Guénon’s own words from “Initiation and Spiritual Realization”, which is consistent with my paraphrase.
“Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and contingent change, whether arising simply from the moral domain … Contrary to what takes place in conversion, nothing here implies the attribution of the superiority of one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what one might call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from simple individual preference…”
Hardly a very “devout” conversion. Now, he either deceived his Sufi masters for “reasons of spiritual expediency” in order to gain an initiation-- which is doubtful, or they were in accord with his views.
Mutti doesn’t appear to understand much of this.
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. - Would you mind elaborating a bit?
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Rowan Berkeley
<rowan.berkeley@...> wrote: - To Guénon, "Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and
contingent change, whether arising simply from the moral domain..."
However, he was not the one who set the rules of the game. There is
only one way to become a Muslim : upon pronouncing the 'shahadah'
(pledge of conviction of faith) in front of two adult Muslim witnesses.
Now, it remains to be seen - and it's most probably the point C.
Afendopoulo and you want to make - whether Guénon converted to Islam
'in good faith' or for reasons of expediency, or, as Guénon put it
mildly, for "reasons of spiritual expediency". Only him could answer.
Not that we are particularly interested in that matter, but some facts
would tend to show that he did it in good faith (for example, converts
can retain their previous name, but he did not) ; others, for reason
of expediency, more or less linked to the situation in which a rich
American widow left him in Cairo in March 1930.
More importantly, what also remains to be seen is whether Guénon was
speaking for everyone or merely for himself in 'Initiation and
Spiritual Realization'. It's all very well to discourse on
'conversion' from a metaphysical point of view. However, what is the
value of this discourse, when, in practice, the one who makes it shows
a most materialistic and quantitative understanding of it? Once again.
it should be recalled that Guénon gave his full support to the insane
proposal made in 1934 to J.Reyor by F. Schuon to "islamise Europe" and
to convert Europeans "par fournées" (by batches), and which,
understandingly, left Reyor flabbergasted. J. Reyor was Guénon's
private secretary for more than ten years. Those who have not read
"Souvenirs et perspectives sur René
Guénon' (a short excerpt of this text in Spanish translation can be
found at
http://www.geocities.com/symbolos/s19ined1.htm) do not have a clue who
Guénon really was.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:>
as that
> RE:
> It has always been our understanding that, to be able to become a
> Sufi, conversion to Islam is a prerequisite, and René Guénon, or
> rather Abdel Wahêd Yahia, is no different in this respect, no matter
> when his conversion took place, whether it was before he was initiated
> to Sufism (1912) or in 1934, when he married F. Hanem, one of the
> daughters of sheikh Mohammed Ibrahim.
>
>
>
> My statement was precisely this: [Guénon] never "converted" to Islam
> act is commonly understood.
form to
>
> As commonly understood, conversion is the passage from one exoteric
> another and involves a change of belief as well as behaviour.
by which
>
> Esoterically, conversion indicates an "intellectual metamorphosis"
> the "being passes from human thought to divine comprehension." If
one has
> already undergone such an intellectual metamorphosis, then the
particular
> exterior form is merely a matter of expedience, and usually means
following
> local customs. "Generally speaking, anyone who has an understanding
of the
> unity of traditions is necessarily `unconvertible' to anything
change,
> whatsoever."
>
> What follows are Guénon's own words from "Initiation and Spiritual
> Realization", which is consistent with my paraphrase.
>
> "Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and contingent
> whether arising simply from the moral domain Contrary to what
takes place
> in conversion, nothing here implies the attribution of the
superiority of
> one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what
one might
> call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from
masters
> simple individual preference "
>
> Hardly a very "devout" conversion. Now, he either deceived his Sufi
> for "reasons of spiritual expediency" in order to gain an
initiation--which
Mr. Naquib’s comments are what one would expect from the representative of an exoteric doctrine, so it hardly moves the discussion forward. All it serves to do is re-emphasize the point that Guénon did not “convert” in Naquib’s sense --- i.e., he did not submit to Mr. Naquib’s version of things.
RE caleb afendopoulo’s point, I can’t understand how that is “tantamount” to a conversion, since the argument given employs a form of logic I am unfamiliar with. In any event, Guénon provided two incompatible definitions of “conversion”, so I am likely to guess wrong.
When we resort to vulgarity like a soccer hooligan, the discussion is over as far as I’m concerned, so I’ll remain content with aporia.
- sorry, but these long efforts with definitions - "religion" versus something
which its exponent claims should be counted as supra religion. It's just verbal
self indulgence in my view. - The list owner already made mention of Faye's "La nouvelle question
juive" [Les Editions du Lore].
Jürgen Graf also comments on it in his article "La nouvelle question
juive ou la fin Guillaume Faye"
The original article can be found here :
http://www.juergen-graf.sled.name/articles/graf-la-fin-de-guillaume-faye.html
English translation:
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/11/20/the-new-jewish-question-or-the-end-of-guillaume-faye/
German translation:
http://www.juergen-graf.sled.name/articles/das-ende-guillaume-fayes.html
For the article by R. Faurisson see:
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/11/22/dr-robert-faurisson-on-guillaume-faye/
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote: - It is more than four years ago that below message regarding Guillaume Faye ("La nouvelle question juive") was posted here.
In this context I may refer to a more recent article by Michael O'Meara, dealing not only with the flaws in Faye's position, but with various aspects of the current struggle of European nationalists, which might be of considerable interest for the readers of this group.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/the-new-jewish-question-of-guillaume-faye/
- This video surfaced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RELmEPUy6lQ
(actually, the whole speech is available here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydWlis5v3f4) At http://davidduke.com/496/ you will find an account of the meeting.
It should be stressed that what Duke points out here about “all these men in the Neoconservative movement”, some of whom turned out to be those who attacked him theatrically at that theatrical event, applies to most of those who are relentlessly painted as “far-rightists” by media in Europe: they are “in fact former Trotskyites [or, at the very least, far-leftist activists] who subverted traditional conservatives”, others being mere aesthetes with Slovenian-style ties. It might be that J. Evola realised this, when he discouraged youngsters close to him from joining any formal organisation.
There is “no crisis of the contemporary Right”, and there cannot be any, because today there is no such thing as a Right.
On a side note, Faye was once “invited by the Jewish Congress of French Parliament”, and told them: “no, no, no… the great French banks are not Jews…” “Of course [he] did not think so.” Well, the year after, he did think so, claiming, in ‘La Nouvelle Question Juive’ (2007), that international finance is no longer owned by Jews, but “by Chinese”, and by a new race of his invention : “petrodollars”.
The story, which has turned into a slogan in nationalist circles, and is known by heart by people like Faye, goes that Charles Martel stopped the northward advance of the Arabs at Poitiers in 732. It is less often noticed that his descendants and successors welcome with open arms at their courts such agents of the Semitic culture as the troubadours.
Amren's response to the incident, which can be found at http://www.amren.com/news/2006/04/jews_and_americ/, is quite interesting, especially this passage: “As far as the Jewish Question is concerned, I think that whites need to take responsibility for what they do themselves. I think that it's not useful to blame our failure on the machinations of others. People who are constantly talking about and complaining about Jewish influence remind me of blacks who think everything that's ever gone wrong for blacks in the past or ever will go wrong for blacks in the future is because of white racism. I think that blacks need to be responsible for their successes and their own failure, and I think that the whites have to as well. »
We have no problem in agreeing with the view that “it's not useful to blame our failure on the machinations of others”.
What we have a problem with is the use of the pronoun “our” by people who clearly do not have a clue as to what is “ours”.
There is something to which attention has not been drawn, not even by professional or half-time antiracists, so far, and this the fact that raciology in the XXth century (Günther is a perfect example of this tendency) was as keen on finding traces of White genes in non White people as it cast aside the study of non White genes in White European populations. Nor do antiracists seem to be interested in this subject. For having published well-documented books on miscegenation between coloured people and the White population of Europe from Antiquity to the Renaissance, the ‘father’ of Afrocentrism was ostracised by Academia. A chapter of his main work (‘Sex and Race’, available at archive.org), called ‘Racial Mixing under Islam’, is now available in French at http://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/
evola_as_he_is@{{emailDomain}}