We trust that this unfortunate mistranslation will be corrected as
soon as possible. Manifestly, it is not due to a misreading of the
German original.
Although Evola did not use this expression, it is true that, in the
1930's, he wasn't far from suspecting that the Jew had become a sort
of 'scapegoat' for the National-Socialist leadership ; he didn't go
so far as to use it, speaking, instead, of an 'idée fixe', in the
preface to the 'Protocols' as well as in the one he wrote to the
translation he made of de Poncins' 'La guerre occulte' : "(...) to
turn the general attention exclusively on Jews and on Free-Masons,
almost as an idée fixe, and to make them appear as the only ones
responsible for all sorts of things could hide a trap and be a tactic
to distract people's attention from a more comprehensive view and
conceal the true nature of the destructive influences in question".
Almost 70 years later, hasn't history taken care of dispelling this
suspicion?
Now that the first point is cleared, let's turn to the only two
interpretations which seem problematic to us in
http://www.geocities.com/traditionundmetaphysik/wolfszeit.html/ It is
often assumed that, because Evola was somehow influenced by Reghini
when he wrote 'Imperialismo pagano' and 'Heidnischer Imperialismus'
and Reghini was a Free-Mason, these works must necessarily feel the
effects of Masonic ideology, without those who are of this opinion
taking in consideration the possibility that what influenced Evola in
Reghini's thought had nothing to do with the Masonic affiliation of
the latter, and without them being able to substantiate their claim
in any way. If you manage to detect a Masonic influence in Evola's
work, please point it out. In the meantime, we have good grounds for
saying that none of these books feel the effects of Masonic
ideological platform. In support of this, it should be stressed once
again that, unlike Reghini and other Free-Masons, Evola never took
any anti-Catholic stand ; what he called for was not the overturn of
the Church, but its subordination to the State, and not to the
secular one advocated by Free-Masonry, but to the one which is rooted
in transcendent values. There is more than a slight difference
between traditional State and Masonic State.
Had he been influenced in one way or another by what feels the
effects of Masonic ideology in Reghini's thought, please note that we
would readily acknowledge it, while hailing his capacity to distance
himself from it.
About a year ago, we posted a few critical messages about Eurasianism
and National-Bolshevism (162 ; 215 and 217). If you care to read
them, you'll realise that, if we take into consideration Evola's
criticisms of Yockey's 'Imperium', we do not do so from an
Eurasianist standpoint, especially since we fail to see how and on
what grounds an Eurasianist can claim to adhere to the world-outlook
set out with an impressive and implacable lucidity in 'Imperium', in
which some excerpts expand on the line of thought first outlined by
Evola in 'Americanism and Bolshevism' : "In his victory parade in
Moscow in 1945, the barbarians ["The Kremlin Mongols"] exhibited his
Western captive slaves to the jeering crowds of his cities, and made
them drag their national flags behind them in the dust. If any
Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between
the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the
feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that Culture.
Tomorrow the captive slaves offered up to the annihilation-instincts
of the Moscow mobs may be drawn from Paris, London, Madrid, as well
as from Berlin. A continuation of the spiritual division of the West
makes this not only possible but ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE. Both the
outer forces ['Americanism and Bolshevism', not in the political-
historical, but, we could almost say, typological sense] are working
for the continued division of the West; within they are helped by the
least worthy elements in Europe [the E.U. 'human material']". How on
earth is it possible for an Eurasianist to claim to adhere to the
views of a man who considered Asian peoples - unsurprisingly for
those who are still faithful to the European Idea - as "extra-
European forces" and, therefore, "culture distorters"? "(...)
Communism was purely destructive in effect, and this was why the
Asiatic power on Europe's boundary adopted it as a program to
disintegrate all European States". Least but not last :"The real
front of the wars of this age is simply Europe versus anti-Europe.
There are borders area, like those between Russia and Europe, like
the northern countries of South America. Each side has its allies:
the white populations strewn over the world belong to Europe; the
Asiatic distorting elements of cohesion and power in the various
Western countries belong to non-Europe".
Is it possible to be less Eurasianist than Yockey.
"The real front of the wars of this age is simply Europe versus anti-
Europe".
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "traditionalis"
<kshatriya@...> wrote:
>
> Dear moderator,
> I thank you for reading my articles so carefully. I am fully aware
> that the Eurasian current is not exactly Evolian (to say the
least)
> and I do not reclaim his authority for it, but it is my conviction
that
> under the circumstances of today remains the only possible
> option. Others may dispute this. But what I think we could agree,
> is that any Eurasian movement (or any European movement
> also) should take into consideration the critic by Evola on Yockey
> (who can be seen as a kind of forerunner of western
> Eurasianism), so to avoid the same mistakes (building on
> civilzation instead of culture, f.e.). Anyway this is not so much a
> question of Evolian scholarity.
> But I must say that I am bit shocked by the sentence you quote
> from the English translation "Julius Evola, A Philosopher in the
> Age of the Wolf", because I would never have written this and it
> seems that I did not check this translation, which was made by a
> known English person, who wished not to be named.
> As can be seen in the German version
>
http://www.geocities.com/traditionundmetaphysik/wolfszeit.html
> I only spoke of the fixation of some of the governments (mainly
> the German, of course). This is a fact which Evola was aware of
> in the thirties and did write about - although cautious -, even in
> the introduction to the "Protocols". He always tried to see the
> Jewish question in context and not as a idée fixe. Therefore I
> have never said and would not that he had to correct himself in
> this question. In difference to the short time Freemasonry
> influence. In general my article might simplify some complex
> questions due to the fact it was written for a paper and was not
> longer as it is, at the same time cover the whole life and not only
> extolling.
> As to the critic in an earlier message about Hansen´s
> mentioning of Otto Braun, I can only say that I just have read the
> introduction to the new edition of "Saggi sull' Idealismo Magico"
> by Franco Volpi, and he also mentions the role of Braun for the
> philosophy of "magic idealism".
>
> Best Greetings,
>
> Martin Schwarz
>
>
http://www.kshatriya.tk
>
>
>
> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
> <evola_as_he_is@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From a scholarly point of view, the preface to 'Riding the Tiger'
> is
> > a worthy introduction to the work of Julius Evola. It's well-
> > documented, well-structured, very informative. Its descriptive
> part
> > is indeed trustworthy. After all, the author has been familiar
> with
> > the subject of his study for more than 35 years, during which
> he has
> > translated Evola's main works into German. It's its critical part
> > which is problematic, for a reason which, since you seem to
> have had
> > the good idea to browse the messages of this forum, you are
> aware of.
> > It is problematic to the extent that his criticisms of Evola's
> supra-
> > Fascist stands are made from an infra-Fascist point of view,
> that is,
> > to say, a democratic point of view, which, to Evola, is worthless
> ;
> > at best : a symptom of decay ; it is illegitimate and absurd to
> > assess qualitative values according to quantitative criteria.
> This is
> > coupled with an unfortunate tendency to make apologies for
> so-called
> > mistakes for which Evola never apologised, since he never
> considered
> > them as mistakes, to start with.
> >
> > Along the same lines, but in a less pronounced manner, Martin
> Schwarz
> > claims the Italian writer said things that he didn't and had
> thoughts
> > he didn't have. Contrary to what is stated in
> >
http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/jenseitseng.html/, Evola
> > never "judged his single-minded fixation on the "Jewish
> question" of
> > the 1930s governments as a mistake, traceable to those
> hidden powers
> > that were thus able to pursue their own activities in the
> background"
> > and cannot be said to have had a "fixation" about it., to start
> > with. Some people, who exaggerate Reghini's influence on
> Evola, may
> > think that the latter "had been forced into a narrow,
> anti-Catholic
> > direction under the influence of Freemasony", but Evola
> > never "thought himself" that it had been the case.
> >
> > Schwarz doesn't beat about the bush. When he indulges in
> wishful
> > thinking, this gives rise to absurd interpretations, such as the
> one
> > according to which "Evola's review of Francis Parker Yockey's
> > Imperium" would be "a kind of blue-print for most of the
> movements
> > seeking to establish the Eurasian New Order" ; obviously, he's
> trying
> > to lend credibility to a movement which cannot but appear as
> highly
> > suspect to any truly conscious European, for reasons set out in
> some
> > of our previous messages on Eurasianism and
> National-Bolshevism.
> > Leaving this aside, the picture which is drawn of Evola's work
> in the
> > article and in the interview
> > (
http://www.rosenoire.org/interviews/schwarz.php/) is quite
> faithful,
> > and some remarks are quite relevant :
> >
> > "Evola was not really interested in what is commonly
> > called "religion".
> >
> > "Evola is not primarily interested in history as such. He is
> > concerned with the contact to the immutable, eternal centre of
> Being".
> >
> > "More than others, he deserves to be called a "loner," a solitary
> > thinker in a derelict landscape: the philosopher in the Age of
> the
> > Wolf".
> >
> > even though they would gain at being clarified.
> >
> >
> > --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "lordofthespear"
> > <hailtocryptogram@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the preface written by H.T. Hansen really not that
> trustworthy?
> > I'm
> > > quite surprised to hear that, there's really much to learn for
> our
> > > non-Italian readers.
> > > What about Martin Schwarz? I haven't seen his name being
> mentioned
> > > here (perhaps for a similar reason, then?).
> > >
> > > --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
> > > <evola_as_he_is@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > The authors who had an influence on him Evola mentioned
> in his
> > self-
> > > > biography. Obviously, the writer of this preface, against
> which
> > we have
> > > > already warned firmly, knows better than him who exactly
> > influenced his
> > > > thought.
> > > >
> > > > The only question here is: by whom is the thought of the
> writer
> > of this
> > > > preface influenced, consciously or not?
> > > >
> > > > Thompkins&Cariou
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "skyegamble89"
> > > > <skyegamble89@y...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In Dr. H.T. Hansen's introduction to "Men Among the
> Ruins", he
> > > > > mentions Otto
> > > > > Braun as being a decisive influence upon Evola's
> thought. I'm
> > > > > ordering his
> > > > > (Braun's) diaries, but I haven't been able to find any
> > information
> > > > > about Braun
> > > > > himself. Does anybody have any information? Hansen's
> assertion
> > that
> > > > > Braun
> > > > > was one of three decisive influences upon Evola's
> thought
> > (along with
> > > > > Michelstaedter and Weininger) also seemed suspect to
> me- again,
> > any
> > > > > information would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Skye J. Gamble
> > > >
> > >
> >
>