EVOLA AS HE IS is a Restricted Group with 185 members.

Name us one racially aware thinker of the XXth century who did not fall into this trap.

We have read a few chapters of ‘The Jewish Strategy’, and the bold hypotheses it contains may indeed be called “refreshing”. Our attention was drawn to one particular chapter, called ‘Conspiracy or instinct ?’, since, as you may remember, this question arises in the third part of ‘Three Aspects of The Jewish Problem’’ – whose second edition will be published as soon as the preface and the postface, in which it is discussed, is proofread. Both author reach the conclusion that the thesis of a plot of worldwide domination should be discarded, without, it should be stressed, presenting many arguments in support of their own thesis, that of the ‘blind instinct’.

In any case, these two theses should not be seen as mutually exclusive, in so far as three aspects, or elements, can be distinguished in the Jewish substance : “firstly, the more or less modernised or bourgeoisified Jew of a faceless middle-class; in the second place, there is the Jew as cultural agent, the Jew as writer, artist, ideologist, sociologist, scientist and so forth; in the third place, there is the Jew as creature of the Jewish law, and as conscious instrument of the Jewish law.” (http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id16.html) Indeed, nothing prevents one from thinking that what is purely instinctive in the first and second strata may be conscious in the third stratum. This is glimpsed by the American author, when he points out that “the great mass of Jews seem to be, almost without exception, under the tight control and discipline of their fairly numerous leaders, who could, in turn, be equally subject to the orders of a supreme and secret directorate, which plans and directs a conscious strategy as set forth in the famous "Protocols.” These considerations should have been explored. And so should have been the accurate observation that ”It is a pernicious and perhaps fatal error, characteristic of our race, to assume that other races have approximately the same nature as ours”, and, for the sake of consistency, the necessary conclusions on the issue at hand drawn from this observation.

Concerning the Protocols, and, more particularly, Protocol n°14, and its rabid attack on Christianity, it is usually produced as evidence that the aims of those behind this propaganda work are intrinsically opposed to the teachings of this religion, and to its followers, and, by implication,, that, being the enemy of our enemy, this religion, at least as Catholicism, would be our friend, and, so to speak, some sort of bulwark against a threat that would be external. This evidence - accredited by the fact that the so-called ‘dechristianisation’ and the concomitant ‘Judaisation of the Church’ started just a few decades after the publication of A. Weishaupt’s apparently anti-religious (and NOT specifically anti-Christian) agenda, a great admirer of Jesus, who, like his followers, approvingly claimed that Jesus’ real aim had been “to introduce general freedom an equality among men without any violent revolution” (Anrede, 170-2) - proves, however, to be wrong, when looked at more closely. In fact, a de-Christianisation did occur, but only one of facade : Church lands were confiscated, statues, and other iconography were removed from places of worship, crosses, bells and other external signs of worship destroyed, religious festivals, private as well as public worship prohibited, priests deported or murdered, on the initiative of those who were behind the so-called French revolution, with their radical brand of Christianity: hyper-Judaism: it can be said that the Church has not been Judaised, but re-Judaised, given the Jewish character of early Christianity. Mirabeau let the cat out of the bag, when, in his final hours, he had the lucidity to make the following statement: “Vous n'arriverez à rien si vous ne déchristianisez la Révolution.” (“You won’t get things done if you do not de-Christianise the Revolution”; “If you do no dechristianise the Revolution”, and not “if you do not dechristianise France”: there is a slight difference). Thus, the so-called French revolution can be considered, as paradoxical as it might seem, as a Christian revolution, as an umpteenth Christian revolution, in a sense that, like Solon’s reform in the Antiquity, it was conducted in the name of the Goddess cult of which Christianity is a (respectable) manifestation. Thus, Boissel, a forerunner of ‘feminism’, shouted, at the tribune of the Jacobins: “The rights of citizens consist in the enjoyment and the usufruct of the goods of the earth, our common mother.” In more concrete terms, the revolutionary spirit incubated in the high clergy, as showed by the French writer Chamfort (see, at archive.org, ‘Chamfort, étude sur sa vie, son caractère et ses écrits’, a study which, despite its literary character, reveals the inner workings of the late Ancient Régime as few others do).

Meanwile, “the ignorant barbarians of our race” who had accepted Christianity, outwardly dechristianised as they were, still remained inwardly Christian ; God was dead, but ”the pure Christian morality of love, submission, humility, and mystical humanism” (‘Men among the Ruins’), and, in general, all the lower psychic and psychological elements that make up what may be called the Christian forma mentis, far from disintegrating, galvanised into an even more corrosive precipitate, on contact, a few decades later, with positivism, a renewed form of the cult of (the goddess) Reason, renamed “science”. The cult of (the goddess) Reason, as we have seen, was originally imported to ancient Greece by Semitic thinkers

To be sure, positivism undermined the Christian belief. Time had come for it to be ruined. It had carried out its task: the Christianisation to the core in psychic and psychological terms of what was left of the White man. There was no use for it anymore. Its very foundations – the Goddess cult – became more apparent, that is, to those who are not fooled by the theological hodgepodge of this essentially subversive movement. Besides, had the Christian doctrine and Christian morals not been erased from most Whites’ minds, atheists would have, if not fully realised, at least sensed that the ‘post-modern’ world is – the belief in the equality of men and women, the tyranny of self-righteousness, self-victimisation, the exaltation of everything which is shapeless, weak, inferior, the abolition of property (except theirs : the Church’s), etc. – fully Christian, and that, in following the democratic credo, they are actually Christians – in spirit., while those who fight against the modern world in the name of ‘Christian values’ show similar symptoms.

To come back to Revilo P. Oliver, a serious error he made, and J. Evola, unlike many anti-Semites, did not, was to view and portray the Jews as a race, an error which is highly detrimental to anti-Semitism.