Hello,

According to the traditional view as expressed by Aristotle in the
Western world, each being has a 'nature', each thing has a 'nature'.
And this 'nature' is what it must be, its form, its end, according to
the plan of Nature. The observation of nature, for a traditional-
minded person, is more than the observation of facts. It is not
neutral and passively descriptive; it implies the active discernment
of values.

The active discernment of values is exactly what Evola's work is
about.

It is not neutral and passively descriptive. Nor was, on the whole,
Guénon's world-outlook. In fact, Guénon's definition of exoterism is
closely akin to that which we have just given of 'lunar religion':
any cult in which the relationship between man and the divine is
conceived of in sentimental terms in the broadest sense.
Incidentally, for Guénon, what you call 'the real world' is
the "lowest form of reality".

Evola did not have to translate anything into anything when it comes
to racism. In ancient civilisations, as stressed by him in the
introduction of 'Il Mito del sangue', racism was not theorised, but
experienced, and it is precisely because racism was experienced by
the leading stratum of those civilisations that it never felt the
need to theorise it. Since Evola was born in a civilisation in which
racism was no longer experienced, one of his duties, as a
representative of the Aryan world-outlook, was to theorise it,
according to ancient Aryan teachings, so as to give worthy points of
reference to those in whom race was not dead. Modern gynaeco-
democratic-minded individuals would like and are striving hard to
annihilate superiority in any form. Ancient Aryans, as for them,
never advocated the annihilation of inferior peoples or races, but
their subordination to them. There lies, by the way, a fundamental
difference between inferior races and superior races: the degenerated
forms of the former want to annihilate the latter, whereas, for the
latter, inferior races should be subordinated to them, according to
the very nature of things and to this spirit of tolerance which has
always characterised men of noble origin.

As days go by, experience increasingly shows that Arab and Jewish
influences, and, more generally, Semitic influences, and, even more
generally, Asian influences are a threat to what may be left of
Europe, led as it is, since 1945, by representatives of anti- and
extra-European forces, namely the Jews who, assisted by "spiritually
circumcised" goyim, occupy most key positions in the E.U. and in
European 'states' (names can be given on request; in 2007 in France,
the candidate of the liberal right and the candidate of the liberal
left to the voodoo-like democratic ritual called 'presidential
elections' are most likely to be Jews, for the first time in the
history of French Jacobinism). The main fight, behind-the-scenes, has
already started, between the Jew and the Chinese, probably two of the
most feminine peoples on earth, and, whoever wins, the result will be
more or less the same for European peoples: the establishment of a
tyranny as the world has never seen before, managed by Great Eunuchs
in the service of the 'black widow' or, as de Maistre could have
said, of the 'black she-monkey'. In the meantime, the Jew's strategy,
as far as Europe is concerned, remains the same: within the framework
of the 'immigration business', thousands and thousands of extra-
European immigrants are being shipped as we speak to Europe with the
active complicity of the Jews and the passive complicity of
the 'spiritually circumcised' goyim in charge of European states and
the E.U, and this invasion will go on until Europe, already on its
knees, is down. In this, the Jew only continues a slave trade
tradition which he started at the end of the middle ages with the
Arabs; both had a hand on the trans-Sahara slave trade; in case some
of you are impressed and affected by the propaganda of European Jew-
owned media, nothing could have been done along those lines without
the full cooperation of the African tribal chiefs, as shown by
Faurisson in an impeccable study of which he alone has the secret.

Evola has never said that, in the Semitic family, the Arabs are, to
be polite, instrumentalised by the Jews. However, in 'Three Aspects
of the Jewish Problem', he rightly stated that "the 'Jewish' element
cannot be, purely and simply, separated from the general type of
civilisation that formerly spread throughout the whole Eastern
Mediterranean area from Asia Minor to the borders of Arabia". Had
Evola lived to see Europe being invaded by extra-European immigrants
as is now the case, it would have been most interesting to know
whether he would have drawn all the ultimate logical consequences of
this statement of his, consequences which we have just indicated
above.

Evola never supported either Zionism or anti-Zionism, seeing in this
a false opposition, set up by the Jew, who has always hedged his
bets. This being said, it is safe to assume that the fact that the
current leader of 'Eurasianism' used to be a member of the anti-
Zionist Parmyat group set up by the KGB at the end of the 1980's
would have amused him, just as he never took Zionism seriously ('Gli
Ebrei in Italia e il vero problemo ebraico', La Vita Italiana, June
1937). Nor have true Zionists ever taken it seriously, at least not
publicly, in the media.

"Treating Muslims as foes and supporting zionism against them", on
the other hand, is typical of individuals who claim to represent
Evola when all that seems to matter for those bourgeois-minded
intellectuals in this connection is his being a baron. Before they
can afford to buy a title of baron, however, they will have to work
harder for the Zionist cause than they do. It's no secret that the so-
called 'nouvelle droite' has switched from anti-Zionism to Zionism
lately. We fail to see what may be paradoxical in this attitude.
Anyone who knows the 'nouvelle droite', we won't say from the inside,
but from above, should know that those guys have always cashed in on
all sides. Weather vanes can only change with the weather. It is in
their nature to do so. Let's be more specific here: just as, in the
U.S. and in the U.S.S.R., so-called far-right organisations are set
up by the intelligence service in order to control 'devious goyim',
many European so-called far-right groups have been infiltrated right
from the start, if not set up, by the intelligence service, after
WW2. Many self-proclaimed leaders of the so-called 'nouvelle droite'
turn out to have been seen speaking in dark corners with members of
the intelligence service. Let's not even mention prominent so-called
far-right political schemers whose respective parties have been
lobbied by the Jew for a while. Lobbied by Jewish organisations for
years, the Belgian far-right has just signed an agreement which
stipulates that it will 'respect democratic rules': who do you think
is behind this agreement? Who do think greased the palms of the
representatives of the Vlaams Blok? Thus, let's not be too naive here.

A ten years-old boy was caught drawing a swastika on a grave in a
Christian cemetery in France a few days ago and he
obviously 'couldn't explain his act'. Brainwashed by the Republican
school and its female staff (93 per cent of teachers are females in
French private schools, 75 per cent in public schools, and the
numbers are most likely to be similar in other European countries),
any white pupil has been taught, by means which the Christian Eustace
Mullins called 'satanist', to see the swastika as a sign
of 'transgression', whereas, only 60 years ago in the Third Reich, it
was seen again as it was seen in ancient India: as one of the most
essential cosmic symbols. In a television interview on an English
channel a few months ago, a Hindutvist political schemer denounced,
had the cheek to denounce the "illegitimate use made by Nazi Germany
of the Hindu (sic) symbol of the swastika". Apparently, he's not the
only Hindutvist to do so.

Do we need to elaborate?

In fact, we do: as pointed out by Devi in 'Rocks of the Sun", during
WW2, when most prominent Buddhists were strongly in favour of
National-Socialism, Hinduists of Jewish origin like Vivekananda were
campaigning for the allied and their notorious 'human rights'.

Let's be able, once again, to make out what is ours and what is not
ours. What is ours has its principle in itself. What is not ours does
not have its principle in itself, but outside itself.

Thompkins&Cariou




> -- that is certainly Evola's view, and it serves as a convenient
means
> for him to translate 'zoological racism' into 'spiritual racism'
> without actually having to change the line-up of friends and
enemies.
> However, one is entitled to point out that in the real world,
treating
> Arabs and Jews as undifferentiated foes of Europe is only
marginally
> less stupid than treating Muslims as foes and supporting zionism
> against them. In addition, there are a multitude of geo-strategic
> paradoxes of a similar but less obvious nature awaiting the
> theoretician who thinks this way. What for instance should we make
of
> the alliance between 'aryanist' hindutva parties in India and
zionism?
> Who exactly is saying what when the Hindutvists paint swastikas on
the
> walls of Muslim homes?