You refer to the post-WW2 Italian 'far-right' generation in
particular, then.
Evola himself has shed light on that group of people whom he knew
personally for most of them, either individually and explicitly in the
course of writings which have not been translated in English yet or in
general in some of the texts which have been made available lately to
the Anglo-Saxon audience. 'Orientamenti', of which we have spoken and
which was intended for that generation, brings into light the
misunderstandings and the mistakes they made, the dead end in which,
as a result, they found themselves, whilst giving them a series of
ethical and spiritual formative precepts meant to allow them to find
their bearings and being aware that only those who have not lost their
sense of direction may find their way again.
Take the first paragraph of 'Fascism and the Traditional Political Idea' :
"As is well known, 'neo-Fascists' is the word which is now used, both
in the democratic and in the communist milieux, to designate those
who, in Italy and elsewhere, are still standing up and fighting for a
higher political idea. In a way, moreover, this designation has been
accepted by these groups themselves. A situation not devoid of
misunderstanding and danger has thus been created which often plays
into the adversary's hand. Hence, among other things, the fact that
people speak, in an obviously pejorative manner, of 'nostalgias'. As a
matter of fact, the part played among the forces which we have just
mentioned by what can be called mythologising is obvious : a myth has
been made of Fascism and Mussolini, and what is focused on, in
general, is a historically conditioned reality and the man who was the
centre of it, rather than an idea which can be worthwhile in itself
and for itself, independently of these conditionalities, an idea,
therefore, which is not confined to a past as an object of more or
less inane 'nostalgia', but on the contrary remains today well-defined
and retains today all its meaning."
Don't these considerations already allow you to figure out what kind
of obstacles 'neo-Fascists' encountered, both within and outside
themselves?
Evola, who was as far from optimism as he was from from pessimism, did
not have any illusions on the 'human material' with which he dealt at
that time. The future proved him right. The leader of the M.S.I.-
Destra Nazionale, a party born out of the nostalgia for Fascism, G.
Fini, who "read Evola" and who, shortly before he entered the Italian
parliament for the first time in 1994, still stated that Mussolini was
the "greatest stateman of the twentieth century", ten years later, on
an official visit to Israel, changed sides by stating that Fascism was
"the absolute evil" of the twentieth century and that the reign of
Mussolini was a "shameful chapter of the history of the Italian
people". Leaving aside living careerist caricatures who embrace
opinions which are part of the current climate as the chameleon takes
on the colour of the environment in which it is placed, apart from the
fact that the former does it to get noticed, P. Rauti, who belonged to
those youngsters who found out about 'Revolt against the Modern World'
in jail in the aftermath of WW2 (see message 902), who is supposed to
have co-founded with Evola and a few others the first neo-Fascist
organisation, namely the F.A.R., and who became later a member of
Ordine Nuovo, which claimed responsibility for a series of bombings in
the 1960's and in the 1970's, distanced himself gradually from Evola's
work since the latter's death, all the while going from one so-called
far-right party to the other, leaving or being expelled for some,
founding others, such as Movimento Idea Sociale (2004), an
anti-capitalist party supporting the Third world, in the golden jungle
of parliamentarianism. The vast majority of militant 'Evolians' have
followed suit, whatever their form of militancy. Among those who
turned to edition, G. Freda is an icon, whose career, which we
examined a few months ago, is characteristic of the dubbious
activities they engaged in, of the questionable strategies they
applied, and of the insurmountable, both inner and outer, obstacles
they encountered. Let us summarise this examination..
G. Freda drew attention to him in 1963, when he published a brochure
which unleashed a barrage of hysterical criticism in the Italian
Jewish community and in the Italian communist party. In the same year,
he wrote to Evola for the first time ; the latter's reply can be found
on the website of the publishing house Freda set up the year after. In
this letter, Evola warned him against a mistake which had already been
made by most of the Evolians who entered in the Italian poliical mess
in the 1960's ; this mistake Freda made too : he fell in the Jewish
trap which awaits those who are induced to think that there is an
objective and intrinsic opposition between Zionism and anti-Zionism,
when both are isntrumentalised by individuals who are neither Zionist
nor anti-Zionist. It's always the same old story.
Two permanent features can be seen in his militant commitment : the
struggle against Zionism and the criticism of the bourgeois liberal
system, which he considered as the manifestation of American
imperialism in post-WW2 Europe. In 1969, it was him who organised in
Padova, together with the Maoist group 'Potere operaio', the first
major support meeting for the Palestinian cause in Italy, in the
presence of representatives of the Fatah. In the true
Semitic-Jabobinic tradition of terrorism, he provided one of them with
timing devices. It is thus clear that, before assuming that the
'System' was doomed to implode, he was willing to make it explode,
literally speaking.
'La disintegrazione del Sistema' was published in 1969, in the middle
of the so-called student movement, which, if it was of a relatively
less 'revolutionary' character in Italy than it was in France, still
appeared as an 'anti-establishment' youth movement, led by the idle
kids of the 'establishment', instrumentalised in their turn by
far-leftist groups. All dikes - the very last ones, the few remaining
ones in the deathly bourgeois society of the late 1960's - finally
broke, and - to quote Carlyle who was fond of this French word in
similar contexts - this 'racaille' was then free to infiltrate
gradually the state apparatus of most European countries, in which it
ended up taking over administrations, media, and education; before it
fell back into line and took on a middle-class profile. Revolution can
be fun.
As is even acknowledged by his French thurifers, Freda's message was
aimed at this so-called 'anti-establishment' youth and at the elements
which were behind it, whose real nature, with a due humour, Evola
showed he was not fooled by : "Owing to the lack of a true counterpart
and of the predominance of an irrational background, we can say,
without any spitefulness, that this anti-authority movement would
deserve an existential and psycho-analytic study rather than a
cultural study" ('Considerazioni sul movimento studentesco', Il
Conciliatore, 1968). Freda turned to the extra-parliamentarian
far-left, to Maoist small groups, to the Marxist-Leninist Italian
Party, to fight the 'System', according to the tactics based on the
assumption that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. He came down
strongly against what he considered as the bourgeois values of our
times, that is, moral order, conformism, pro-Zionism and and
philo-Americanism, as well as against their bearers, priests,
magistrates, bankers, and the like. Evola could have asked him : in
the name of what? Economically, Freda favoured a communist
organisation, which, according to his supporters, owes less to Marx's
views than to Plato's, who, they may have forgotten, renounced in 'The
Laws' the communist-like form of state he upheld more or less in 'The
Republic'.
He is called a 'man of action', by people whose writings and behaviour
show that they mistake action for restlesness. In 1970, in a preface
he wrote to a book by Evola, he viewed favourably the possibility of a
urban guerilla in Italy. This feels the effect of the neo-romanticism
and of the 'Che-Guevarism' which are still rampant in most
contemporary European so-called far-right circles, which focus on the
issue of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and on the related issue of
the existence of an Israeli state and of the acknowlegment of a
Palestinian state, so much so that this issue has become for them an
obsession in the pathological sense, whether they are pro-Israeli or
pro-Palestinian, and it seems that their whole policy is determined
exclusively by it. Once again, the cart is conveniently put before the
horse - we have just said 'conveniently', since, as should be more
widely known, current Western institutions are affected by the same
split between pro-Israeli parasites and a pro-Palestinian culture
fluid, both being more than willing to sponsor any intellectual who
defends their respective exotic cause. Thus, whether out of careerism
or out of mere blindness, in which moral and intellectual cowardice
plays a greater or lesser part, consequences are mistaken for causes.
Instead of getting to the root of the problem, which lies in the fact
that Western countries are currently and more than ever managed de
facto by the Jew and that, as a result, their policies are dictated to
them behind-the-scene by the Jew, pro-Palestinian European
far-rightists tackle consequences : instead of fighting against the
'cultural parasitism' of the Jew in Europe, without which an Israeli
state would never have been established by means of his main
instruments, namely Anglo-Saxon countries, they fight against the
existence of the Israeli state, not seeing, as far as the blind as
concerned, that the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict, besides
being a lure set up by the Jew, who will use it to divert goyim's
attention from the real issue as long as it is in his interest to do
so, will never be settled if the Jew is not neutralised and rendered
harmless in Western capitals, where he calls the shots. Instead of
coming down strongly on the United States as a country fundamentally
Jewish in all its aspects and run by Jewish and Jewishised lobbies,
they revel in criticising 'American imperialism'. And so on.
This ideological 'Bovarysm' is typical of the vast majority of the
representatives of the same generation of the so-called 'Nouvelle
droite'. The Summer 1980 issue of the French review 'Totalité' was
devoted to critical analyses of the views of this movement, made by
French authors who stayed on its sidelines and by Italian authors who
belong to its Italian branch. A review, itself critical, of this
special issue called 'La Nouvelle droite à la lumière de la
tradition', and which is still most topical, will be published sooner
or later on this list, and will supplement exhaustively the answer
which has been given to your questions.
For now, this overview of the failings of the post-WW2 far-right
movements would not be comprehensive if we did not mention a tactics
which has become most fashionable among their militants as well as in
the large circle of those who throw their weight around : entryism and
its notorious variant, that is, 'noyautage' in France, 'infiltrazione'
in Italy. In practice, without exception, once they are accepted into
a group, instead of modifying its political line, it is their line
which ends up, usually rather quickly, being modified by the group's
;.at worse, entryism is an alibi for careerists and, at best, on the
theoretical plane, as a Gramscist modus operandi, it shows a
misunderstanding of the spirit of the Right, which implies, on the
political plane as on any other plane, a straighforward, open fight,
and not sneaky, subterranean manoeuvres.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "G" <vnvsmvndvs@...> wrote:
>
> Concerning the post-WW2 generation of which is spoken in both
> messages, I would like to ask if someone is perhaps able to shed more
> light on this group of people?
> What activities did they engage in? What were their strategies and
> what kind of obstacles did they encounter?
>
> Any information on this subject can be of importance to today's
> generation of people who have a sincere interest in Evola's life and
> work and find it more than necessary to engage in
> counter-revolutionary activities. Without wanting to sound overly
> optimistic I would say that knowledge about the nature of the struggle
> of past generations would possibly enable us to apply those tactics
> that have proven succesful or to avoid repeating certain missteps.
>
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "phrasena" <phrasena@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, if you want to know the story of Evola's return to his home
> > City Rome, the reading of Clemente Graziani's book of rememberances
> > would be a good tip. Graziani tells us about a short stay in jail
> > together with Gianfranceschi and Rauti, where they discovered
> > Evola's books in the prison's library. Immediately after having left
> > the cells of the well-known old Maria Coeli prison, they tried to
> > meet the Master, who was still cured in Bologne.
> >
> > The story has deeply enchanted me, when I read him some years ago,
> > especially because it is a charming testimony of a genuine youth
> > faith, of an actual thirst of wholeness and sincere veneration,
> > inviting to direct initiative without any lost of time. A virtue
> > that has disappeared among today's youngsters.
> >
> > But are you sure that it was as late as 1948? I would say that it
> > was earlier, after the three had been released as British Prisoners
> > of War ? Could you check please ?
> >
> > --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
> > <evola_as_he_is@> wrote:
> >
> > (...) As is well-known, Evola, following his accident in Vienna in
> > April 1945, was treated in Austria, and did not come back to Rome
> > before 1948. He settled down there for good only in 1951, after
> > having been treated in various hospitals in Bologna. 'Orientamenti'
> > was first published in 1950 by the group which had just founded the
> > famous review 'Imperium', of which only four issues were published,
> > from Eastern to Autumn of that year, and to which Evola contributed
> > with 3 articles.
> >
> > Most of those who founded it were young men in their early twenties,
> > who belonged to that "generazione che non ha fatto in tempo a
> > perdere la guerra" ("the generation that didn't make it in time to
> > lose the war" - F. Gianfranceschi). In post-WW2 occupied Italy, most
> > of the editors of 'Imperium' experienced repression and gaol, under
> > the pretext that they were supposedly sympathisers of a neo-Fascist
> > underground organisation (F.A.R.).
> >
> > One of them, Pino Rauti, a few months after Evola's death,
> > recalled : "Tens and tens of rightist Romans, mainly students, but
> > also men who had fought for the R.I.S. (Italian Social Republic.Note
> > of the Editor), 'met' Evola through his books, and read them in the
> > cells of the Roman prison of Regina Coeli (...) from 1946 to 1950"
> > ("Evola : una guida per domani",'Civiltà', II, 8-9, Sept-Dec. 1974).
> >
> > Giano Accame, along the same lines, recalled :
> >
> > "Selected by a certain ability to face incomprehension and
> > isolation, to withstand conflicts, and having built our habitat (in
> > French in the text. Note of the Editor) through endured brawl and
> > discrimination, we even ended up divided among ourselves, between
> > Gentilians and Evolians(...) Gentilians claimed to represent a
> > philosopher assassinated because of his adherence to the Italian
> > Social Republic, but whose name was found in all school manuals and
> > whose value, though controversed, was universally acknowledged.
> > Evolians, on the contrary, huddled up against a thinker whose name
> > was generally ignored, who was not spoken of in any book and in any
> > paper, who was not established among scholarly culture and among the
> > republic of letters, who, save a few exceptions, was never taken
> > seriously by Fascism itself, but who had become the almost secret
> > heritage of a youthful current of Fascism, the tiny minority of a
> > minority, which was besides slightly mocked within the ghetto of the
> > vaniquished, even though the expression used to portray them had a
> > peculiar beauty : the current of the "sons of the Sun"."
> >
> > It is to youth, to that youth, which is often referred to
> > in 'Orientamenti', that this work was written for. There are 11
> > orientations, given for the "fight to be fought, especially to
> > youth, so that it takes up the torch and the instructions of those
> > who have not fallen, learning from the error of the past and being
> > able to discriminate well and reconsidering all that has felt
> > yesterday and still feels the effect of contingent situations. It is
> > essential not to go down to the level of the adversaries, not to
> > only raise mere watchwords, not to insist excessively on what of
> > yesterday, even if worth being remembered, does not correspond to
> > current and impersonal power-ideas, not to yield to the suggestions
> > of a false petty realism, the tare of every 'party'.
> >
> > It is indeed necessary that our forces act also in the hand-to-hand
> > political and controversial fight to build up all the possible room
> > in the present situation. But, besides, it is important, it is
> > essential, that an élite is formed, which, in a contemplative
> > intensity, defines, with intellectual rigour and absolute
> > intransigence, the idea according to which it must be united, and
> > asserts this idea essentially in the shape of the new man, of the
> > man of resistance, of the man standing among the ruins. If he goes
> > beyond this period of crisis and illusory order, it is only to this
> > man that future will belong. But, even if the destiny that the
> > modern world has created for itself, and which now overwhelms it was
> > not to be contained, in this premisse inner positions will be
> > maintained : in any eventuality what can be done will be done and we
> > will belong to that fatherland which no enemy will ever be able to
> > occupy nor to destroy".
> >
> > In other words : Kapitulieren niemals.
> >
> > And these orientations, needless to say after our readers have been
> > enlightened about the context in which 'Orientamenti' was written,
> > applied obviously, contrary to what Vandermok wrongly assumed (see
> > message 18), to the Italian, to the European, to the Western youth.
> >
>