tim_maroney: umberto eco on the protocols of julius evola

Tim Maroney (

tim_maroney) wrote,
@ 2003-03-22 14:27:00

umberto eco on the protocols of julius evola
The poisonous Protocols

[One] version of the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion was] published by Julius Evola in 1937.

Evola wrote that the Protocols had "the value of a spiritual tonic". He added: "Above all, in these decisive hours of western history, they cannot be ignored or dismissed without seriously undermining the front of those fighting in the name of the spirit, of tradition, of true civilisation."

International Jewry, he claimed, lay behind the main sources of the perversion of western civilisation: "Liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism, free thinking, anti-religious enlightenment and their various appendages which lead to the revolt of the masses and to communism itself." For the Jew it was a duty "to destroy every surviving trace of true order and superior civilisation... One Jew is Freud, whose theory is understood to reduce the interior life to instincts and unconscious forces. Another is Einstein, who has brought 'relativism' into vogue... Schoenberg and Mahler, leading exponents of the music of decadence. Tzara is a Jew, the creator of dadaism, the extreme limit of degradation of so-called avant garde art... It is the race, it is an instinct at work here... Now is the time when the forces are rising up everywhere, because now the face of the destiny to which Europe was about to succumb is revealed... May the hour of 'conflict' find those forces gathered in a single, cast-iron bloc, unbreakable and irresistible."

More information on the Evola edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be found in Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity (New York University Press, 2002). On p. 66 Goodrick-Clarke discusses the accompanying essay by Evola, "The Authenticity of the Protocols as Proven by Jewish Tradition."

Some Evola proponents have noted, correctly, that Evola's racial theories were different from those of the Nazis. Evola's main objection to Nazi racism and anti-Semitism was that they were rooted in materialism, that is, physical heredity, while Evola's were rooted in metaphysics. To Evola, it was a mistake to say that the blood of Jews was dirty -- to him, it was their souls. Mussolini adored Evola's Summary of Racial Doctrine and made it the official racial policy of Fascism.

(Post a new comment)

muelos
2003-03-22 10:08 pm UTC (link)

Maybe you can un-confuse me about something. So Evola supposedly turned the idea of impure blood upside-down by transforming it into an idea of impure soul. You don't have to be a Jew by heredity to have a "Jewish soul," and not all hereditary Jews necessarily have "Jewish souls." Anyone can be a "Jew," and not all Jews are "Jews"; it all depends on their politics and their cultural/social cant. Isn't this just redefining the word "Jew" to mean something more like "Liberal"?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

tim_maroney
2003-03-22 11:06 pm UTC (link)

It's a puzzle to me as well. Apparently most but not all people have souls appropriate to their cultural racial type in Evola's view. Presumably Otto Weininger was one of the ethnic Jews with Aryan souls.

Goodrick-Clarke's presentation of the subject (mostly on pp. 65-6) is not entirely clear. I don't believe Evola's edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or his Summary of Racial Doctrine is available in English, and I'm not too keen on sending money to the people who are selling them in Italian.

I will have to look at a copy of Man Among the Ruins and see what H. T. Hansen has to say on the subject, though I'm not too keen on giving money to Michael Moynihan (the translator) either.

Perhaps our local Evola fanciers

keith418 and

breck403 could provide some useful quotations here? What is a Jew to Evola if not an ethnic Jew? Why does he single out individuals who are ethnic Jews? What to Evola is the multigenerational carrier of the "Jewish spirit"? Culture? Magic?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	Interesting... pedicabo 2003-03-23 04:43 am UTC (link)
	...may I ask you what spurred this sudden interest in the work of Evola? Also are you interested in any of the work by Evola that does not deal with his racism? What do you think of these? Especially in light of his association with Mussolini? (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Interesting...

tim_maroney
2003-03-23 10:40 pm UTC (link)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Interesting...

pedicabo
2003-03-24 12:50 am UTC (link)

I wonder why it is that, to you and a few others, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss Evola, Schmitt, Moeller van den Bruck, Pound, Heidegger, Wagner, and others in positive terms, but offensive to point out other facts about their lives which reflect poorly on them. It seems that only advocacy is permissible where the far right is concerned, while the left may be and often is directly condemned.

I have always maintained a critical stance against both the left and the far right and their various attempts at propoganda stunts, rhetorical devices, and gullibility. I just updated with a story of a person who is middle to far right in Norway. A local bodymaster to boot.

I am as strong a critic of the right as of the left, and the reason the criticism of the left is more prevalent is that I simply enjoy the company with the left more than with the right.

In fact, I think that these days the only place where I meet with people on the right is in the local scene of the O.T.O.

I have allready apologised for emotive thinking and analysis which obviously clouded my judgement enough to make a number of presumably flawed assumptions about your reasons. Given that I have allready apologised for my previous posts...

I can't see where in the post you reply to that I have written that "it is perfectly acceptable to discuss Evola, Schmitt, Moeller van den Bruck, Pound, Heidegger, Wagner, and others in positive terms, but offensive to point out other facts about their lives which reflect poorly on them."

I think my questions above are fair and honest. They do not attempt to cast any dark allusions as to your allegiances or agendas. It is presented in a rational manner and I ask you in a straight forward manner:

-What spurred this sudden interest in the work of Evola?
-Are you interested in any of the work by Evola that does not deal with his racism?
-What do you think of this part of his work? Especially in light of his association with Mussolini?

I think straighforward questions should get a straightforward answer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Interesting...

tim_maroney
2003-03-24 09:53 am UTC (link)

What spurred this sudden interest in the work of Evola?

His work is being lauded in a one-sided fashion, without mention of the racist and other highly problematic portions of his work. I feel this is a dirty trick to play on people who are not aware of these aspects, and I am trying to help them come to a more balanced view of the character.

Are you interested in any of the work by Evola that does not deal with his racism?

I've never found Evola's work particularly interesting in that regard or any other.

What do you think of this part of his work? Especially in light of his association with Mussolini?

I'm not sure what the question is. Does the posted entry not adequately express my feelings on the subject?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Thanks;

pedicabo
2003-03-24 10:05 am UTC (link)

Thank you for taking time to answer my questions. This intrigues me, so I hope you will forgive me for asking you some more questions. I am hoping to understand where you are coming from here hence I phrase my assumptions as questions.

His work is being lauded in a one-sided fashion, without mention of the racist and other highly problematic portions of his work. I feel this is a dirty trick to play on people who are not aware of these aspects, and I am trying to help them come to a more balanced view of the character.

Am I understanding you right here when you say you never had any interest in Julius Evola until you saw people lauded him in a one-sided fashion?

Had you ever read any work by him before you wanted to help people get a more balanced view of his character?

I've never found Evola's work particularly interesting in that regard or any other.

Would you care to point out your reasons why you have never found any of his work particularly interesting?

I'm not sure what the question is. Does the posted entry not adequately express my feelings on the subject?

I am sorry that I did not make myself understood here, but your answer makes me wonder. Does the above mean that you disregard all contributions of Evola because of his racism? Because that is the impression I get by reading your answer in conjunction with my question and your original entry. Perhaps I misunderstood you or you misunderstood my question.

If that is the case let me rephrase my question in order to make it more clear.

I meant the following: do you think his racism should have any impact on how we evaluate his teachings that is not rooted in racism? Or even more to the point. Do you feel that it is possible to get something valuable by carefully analysing his works, both racist and non-racist, in their proper context?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thanks;

tim_maroney
2003-03-24 10:58 am UTC (link)

Am I understanding you right here when you say you never had any interest in Julius Evola until you saw people lauded him in a one-sided fashion?

No. I first heard of Evola in Gnosis magazine years ago.

Had you ever read any work by him before you wanted to help people get a more balanced view of his character?

I've picked up his books in bookstores a few times, flipped through them, found nothing of any particular interest to me, and put them back down. Ditto for what's available on the web.

Would you care to point out your reasons why you have never found any of his work particularly interesting?

It's hard to answer a negative. What is there to be interested by?

Does the above mean that you disregard all contributions of Evola because of his racism?

Of course not.

I meant the following: do you think his racism should have any impact on how we evaluate his teachings that is not rooted in racism?

If there were any such, yes. However, race is a foundation element in his system of history, and his system of history is the basis of all his work.

Or even more to the point. Do you feel that it is possible to get something valuable by carefully analysing his works, both racist and non-racist, in their proper context?

Not that I'm aware of. He's a crackpot historian and a wild speculator unencumbered by concern for fact. Such a person's work might be interesting if there was some poetry to the imaginative vistas expressed, but I've never seen anything poetic in Evola's work. He combines unbridled fabrication with plodding literalism and a turgid prose style. There are many things I could be reading that would bring me far more value.

In case I was missing something, I just browsed the web looking for some Evola texts of interest. The first thing I see in English is a bunch of fabricated history about a mythical Golden Age that never happened, expressed as a boring tirade against modernism based on the false historical premise. Why would this be interesting?

Let's look a little more. Ah,here are a few more: "On the Secret of Degeneration" again (it's the most widely distributed Evola in English on the web), "Against the Neo-Pagans," and "Hitler and the Secret Societies."

"Against the Neo-Pagans" is a screed against Volkisch Neo-Paganism, combined with more bad history. He gleefully commits the usual Neo-Platonic error of imposing abstract philosophical explanations on cultural folklore and mythology ("On this basis, all the great pre-Christian cultures shared the striving for a supra-natural freedom, i.e., for the metaphysical perfection of the personality"). He goes on yet again about the noble Hyperborean races, and engages in more attacks on the modernist straw man. There's a bizarre statement that scientists don't believe in nature but only abstract mathematics, and so on. There's nothing either informative or poetic here; it's just bad scholarship.

"Hitler and the Secret Societies" is finally a little bit interesting, in that Evola is writing on a subject about which he seems to have some personal knowledge, rather than spinning off into his ponderous fantasy world. Here again though his weird presuppositions are all over the work, and he degenerates once again into fairy tales about the Hyperboreans. Somehow he comes to the incorrect conclusion that there was no occult background to the Ahnenerbe, which seems to be a cipher for saying that it had an occult background but not one that fit Evola's views of what true occultism should be. The essay seems driven by an agenda to separate Nazism from the occult, when in fact they were more intertwined than he acknowledges. If one has read Goodrick-Clarke there is nothing new or interesting in Evola's piece here, and Evola's partisan approach is misleading.

- So what is it that you find interesting in Evola?
- How can one separate race from a system in which it plays such a foundational role, as the basis of history?
- What interest could Evola's didactics have for anyone who did not share his crackpot assumptions, other than as a historical curiosity?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thanks;

pedicabo
2003-03-24 11:29 am UTC (link)

It's hard to answer a negative.

But you answer my question fully below. For this I thank you.

"Does the above mean that you disregard all contributions of Evola because of his racism?"

Of course not.

Thank you that was the tolerant reply I was hoping from you.

Do you agree that others might find much use in the work of Evola, such as Keith and Breck and many others, and that this need not particularly point to that they are ignorant or fail to adress his racism? Nor does it indicate any embracing of racism or fascism on their part?

If there were any such, yes. However, race is a foundation element in his system of history, and his system of history is the basis of all his work.

So basically you feel that all his work is tarred by his racism?

Thank you for your display of dislike of Evola's work. I don't mind that at all and as I will get down to later in my post I have not had much use for his work either.

Now thatyou have been so kind to answer my questions, I will get down to answer yours.

- So what is it that you find interesting in Evola?

Have I written that I found anything interesting in Evola?

A friend of mine who is a jew is very interested in the work of Evola and have always tried to get me to read his works, I have not found them very interesting or inspiring.

I do know however that a lot of people use his work as inspiration and guidance, and carefully seperates this from Evola's racism or fascism.

- How can one separate race from a system in which it plays such a foundational role, as the basis of history?

There are any number of ways to do this. Both Breck and Keith are using it in such a way that it does not deal with race or racism or fascism at all. The same accounts for my jewish friend and they are all very aware of this part of his character.

They often also refer to the works of Mao, Lenin, Marx and many others who all utilised a system that both led to the most heinous crimes against humanity. They often wonder why noone asks them questions regarding the utility of these systems. Nor is anyone trying to balance anyone's viewpoints regarding these characters.
They wonder why this is so. I do too.

As a related example how can anyone utilise A.C.'s system of sexual magick seeing as it is, or so you would have us believe, built upon mysogynistic principles? Indeed his whole system of magick is many times built upon these ideas. And token references to eggs and female divinities doesn't cut it. I have letters and diaries from A.C. where he demonstrates the same mysogynistic ideas in the last years of his life as he did earlier.

Even worse, A.C.'s ideas and system regarding thelema coems dangerously close to supporting the system of Adolf Hitler. In fact his one criticism of it seems to be, as he writes in his letters to Martha Kuentzel, that the Master Race is not limited to germans (adding that most jews are a far more master race than the germans). He does however as can be shown in his commentaries on Hitler Speaks, share Hitler's ideas re: vitalism, stamping out the untermensch and whatnot.

It is clear that as A.C.'s philosophy develops these ideas gets more and more entrenched. He complains loudly in letters to his female pupils in the 1940s that they simply are not getting what he means when he says that women does not have souls.

What do we make of this? Does this mean that we need to throw A.C. into the dustbin and start from scratch? Do we analyse it critically and see what he really does mean?

- What interest could Evola's didactics have for anyone who did not share his crackpot assumptions, other than as a historical curiosity?

As Joe pointed out Keith has demonstrated a number of utilities of Evola, and other people he cites, without sharing his crackpot assumptions as you call them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thanks;

tim_maroney
2003-03-24 12:00 pm UTC (link)

Do you agree that others might find much use in the work of Evola, such as Keith and Breck and many others,

I don't know what you mean by use. If you're asking if I know that some people like Evola, then obviously yes, some do.

and that this need not particularly point to that they are ignorant or fail to adress his racism?

That they fail to address his racism is a fact. Counterexamples welcome.

Nor does it indicate any embracing of racism or fascism on their part?

It may or may not. There are a number of reasons one might deliberately fail to mention the racism of a particular author. Only some of them point to a covert racist agenda. Others do not. It can be difficult to determine others' motivations in such a case, since modern racists in the civilized world are rarely overt about their positions, and instead use deniable codeword signaling to establish contact with others of like mind. I honestly have no idea whether that is the case here or not. With Flowers and Aquino I have fewer doubts, as the Holocaust denial theme is clearly evident in their work.

So basically you feel that all his work is tarred by his racism?

I don't know what exactly you mean by tarred. It's certainly there. You can't read his work without tripping over it constantly.

I asked: How can one separate race from a system in which it plays such a foundational role, as the basis of history?

Your response was: There are any number of ways to do this. Both Breck and Keith are using it in such a way that it does not deal with race or racism or fascism at all. The same accounts for my jewish friend and they are all very aware of this part of his character.

"People are doing it" and "lots of ways" are not answers to the question. How, specifically, can one separate race from a system in which it plays such a foundational role, as the basis of history?

They often also refer to the works of Mao, Lenin, Marx and many others who all utilised a system that both led to the most heinous crimes against humanity. They often wonder why noone asks them questions regarding the utility of these systems. Nor is anyone trying to balance anyone's viewpoints regarding these characters. They wonder why this is so. I do too.

No, they don't often refer to the left as they do to the right. They talk constantly about Schmitt et al, praising them unreservedly, but only toss in a few Mao quotes in direct response to concerns about their apparent ideological tilt toward the right. Keith couldn't even stand to do that without writing a compensatory blast against Communism a couple of days later. No such reactions are visible in their writings about the Conservative Revolution, Evola, etc. If you perceive this as balanced we have very different ideas of balance. There's a very plain rightward ideological tilt there, and a very plain bias toward obscuring unpleasant aspects of their favored thinkers.

I assume most educated Westerners are aware of who Stalin and Mao were and the terrible things they did. It's strange to me that anyone would say that no one is noting these people committed atrocities. I hear it constantly from both popular and scholarly sources.

In case you feel I'm omitting something, obviously Stalin and Mao were much worse than Evola or Wagner. If there were disguised Stalinist or Maoist apologetics in occultism, I'd be pointing those out too. I don't see any, but if you know of some I'd be interested in seeing them.

As a related example how can anyone utilise A.C.'s system of sexual magick seeing as it is, or so you would have us believe, built upon mysogynistic principles? ... What do we make of this? Does this mean that we need to throw A.C. into the dustbin and start from scratch?

This is a straw man. You are ascribing to me a position I do not hold, that any hypothetical utility in Evola's system should be discarded due to his racism. You go on to apply this false statement of my position to Crowley's work in an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Please stop ascribing to me views I do not hold.

Keith has demonstrated a number of utilities of Evola, and other people he cites, without sharing his crackpot assumptions as you call them.

Please be specific.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thanks;

pedicabo
2003-03-24 12:49 pm UTC (link)

I had written a long replyto this but something went awry and I lost the entire text. I will reply to your points tomorrow Tim.

One clarification. I did not ascribe any position except that you thought A.C. was a mysogynist, something you have several times gone on record both public and in private to me stating. If this has changed and you feel A.C. was not a mysogynist I apologise.
Nevertheless my points was merely meant to be inquiring questions
regarding different modes of aproaching material that we may or may not find offensive.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Thanks;

pedicabo
2003-03-25 03:06 am UTC (link)

I was not refering to whether or not you knew some people liked Evola. I was asking you whether or not you agreed that some people could find something of use in Evola?

What do you know about whether or not they do not addres his racism? Do you know the jew I mentioned? Can you with certainy say it is a fact that he does not address Evola's racism?

As for your comments regarding it may or may not indicate an embrace of racism and fascism. Keith is married to an asian woman. He has worked professionally with a leftist peacemovement for over a decade and is a democrat. How racist and fascist is that?

What I don't get is this never-ending hunt for socalled crypto-fascists. I have seen and experienced firsthand the havoc it creates among the left in europe and it is simply something which leaves me cold.

By tarred with racism I meant that you feel that even his non-racist writings are useless by association with the racist ones.

I am not a proponent of the system of Evola so it is not up to me to describe such an attempt. I think if you go to the link Joe refered you to you will easily see how one can get something of use from Evola wihtout embracing his racism and fascism.

The reason for Keith use the left as an example is that it is there he has his experience. It is the same with me. I know for the most part leftists. I have only known one or two people to the far right. My leftist friends don't feel threatened by my criticism or have to suspect my intentions doing this. In fact they are often partaking in this criticism.

As for what is blaanced. what is balanced for you? Some sort of static 50-50 quote ratio between the left and the right. For me balance is using and evaluating every thinker critically with no allegiances.

As for my A.C. example it was not a straw man. I was not ascribing to you any position you haven't told me repeatedly in private and in public, i.e. that A.C. was a mysogynist. So I think it is you who should stop ascribing me things I do not do. This is not the only time you have done this either.

My questions were meant as inquisitive in the vein that I think the topic is interesting. A.C.'s mysogynism lasted throughout his life and in many cases was worse in his declining years. Same with his agreement with Hitler's ideas. These two things penetrate his whole system. I asked what shall we do with this if this bring us discomfort. There are several options to solve this problem, I suggested but a few of them, including doing the Lyotardian par excellence and redefining the words.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Thanks;

tim_maroney
2003-03-25 09:47 am UTC (link)

I was not refering to whether or not you knew some people liked Evola. I was asking you whether or not you agreed that some people could find something of use in Evola?

I don't know what you mean by "of use," as I stated previously. "Use" seems to state some objective value. I know only of subjective values (colloquially "liking") that people can derive from religion and metaphysics. What use-value do you see in that domain?

What do you know about whether or not they do not addres his racism?

I have been reading Keth's and Breck's posts. They do not address the issue of racism. For instance, Keith's post today does not mention that Carl Schmitt held that under his theory of the state as definer of and committer of violence against a foreign-looking enemy, the Jew was a proper enemy for the German state. Schmitt endorsed this view wholeheartedly. Apparently this fact is somehow taboo to mention for Keith. I have received an email from a correspondent who says that when he posted a message to this effect when Keith began lauding Schmitt, Keith refused to approve it. Not only will Keith not discuss it, he will not allow it to be discussed in his journal. Discussion of unpleasant aspects of these people is taboo to him.

Again, counterexamples welcome. (But you won't find any. I looked.)

Do you know the jew I mentioned? Can you with certainy say it is a fact that he does not address Evola's racism?

Of course not, but why are you changing the subject?

As for your comments regarding it may or may not indicate an embrace of racism and fascism. Keith is married to an asian woman. He has worked professionally with a leftist peacemovement for over a decade and is a democrat. How racist and fascist is that?

Wow, this has got to be the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen you say ("some of my best friends are...").

It's also a straw man. I didn't say Keith was racist or fascist. I said he does not discuss, or allow to be discussed in his journal, unpleasant facts about certain people such as Schmitt, Evola, and Moeller van den Bruck. I draw no conclusion from this fact -- I simply observe it, and note that it is the motivation for my discussing these issues, so that people will be presented with these curiously but consistently omitted facts.

What I don't get is this never-ending hunt for socalled crypto-fascists. I have seen and experienced firsthand the havoc it creates among the left in europe and it is simply something which leaves me cold.

And apparently you imagine it when it is not there. Physician, heal thyself.

By tarred with racism I meant that you feel that even his non-racist writings are useless by association with the racist ones.

A question which I have answered a few times already, yes? Now, do you have any intention of answering the question I've asked you twice? How, specifically, can one separate race from a system in which it plays such a foundational role, as the basis of history?

I am not a proponent of the system of Evola so it is not up to me to describe such an attempt. I think if you go to the link Joe refered you to you will easily see how one can get something of use from Evola wihtout embracing his racism and fascism.

There's not a word there about racism or anti-Semitism. Again, the issue is not addressed at all.

As for my A.C. example it was not a straw man. I was not ascribing to you any position you haven't told me repeatedly in private and in public, i.e. that A.C. was a mysogynist. So I think it is you who should stop ascribing me things I do not do.

To repeat, your question rests on a false assumption about my position. You continue to insist, despite my direct denials and the counterexamples of Crowley, Wagner and Heidegger, that I believe that if a thinker has any unpleasant aspects in their background, they must be discarded. You then go on to ask how I can possibly embrace any part of Crowley given the principle you falsely ascribe to me. This is a straw man. Your conviction that I am saying any thinker must be discarded if there is any taint in their life is apparently unshakable. I don't know what more I can do to address the idee fixe under which you labor.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Seriously Tim,

pedicabo
2003-03-25 10:23 am UTC (link)

Where have I declared that your position is that you "believe that if a thinker has any unpleasant aspects in their background, they must be discarded."

Furthermore where did I ask you how you "can possibly embrace any part of Crowley given the principle you falsely ascribe to me."

"Your conviction that I am saying any thinker must be discarded if there is any taint in their life is apparently unshakable."

The above is pure assumption.

As for the rest of your post it is simply hilarious. I did not change the subject. If you read my post I refered as well to my jewish friend.

As for the Some of my best friends argument that only applies if you are refering to me. If that is the case I don't get it. If it was directed towards Keith, I think his involvement goes a little beyond having a token collored or socialist friend. But that is me. That you believe this is the most embarrassing you have seen me write tells me a lot about you Tim.

I can only assume that my questions are causing you too much distress but that is really not my problem. I won't even cry foul and claim that your tone is unbecoming of our friendship.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Woah nelly! thiebes 2003-03-25 10:57 am UTC (link)
	Tim, [Bad username: pedicabo"] is earnest in his questioning and he does not carry these assumptions in what he writes that I can tell at all. Nor do I see him attacking your views. Perhaps there is difficulty with language barrier and idiosyncracies, but dude, peace! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	The bad username thiebes 2003-03-25 10:58 am UTC (link)
	... was supposed to say pedicabo. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	I like... pedicabo 2003-03-25 11:36 am UTC (link)
	...how my nick came out as bad username, it after all is a very dirty word >:) Thanks for the support Joe. And you are completely right in this. I also remember asking you the same quesitons re: A.C. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: I like... tim_maroney 2003-03-25 07:34 pm UTC (link)
	Response moved here due to excessive nesting. (Reply to this)(Parent)

The value of Julius Evola;

pedicabo
2003-03-25 09:27 am UTC (link)

Speaking with my jewish friend he told me that there were several works by Julius Evola which was very informative, especially the Metaphysics of Sex, which apparently got input from Evola's friend Arthur Avalon. He also likes his magical curricullum for his UR-group. He claims this work revolutionaised his system.

He doesn't care much for Evola's revolt against the modern world, but think that if you can stomach the crap (i.e. racism) there are gems of wisdom to be found there as well.

As I wrote, I have no particular interest in Julius Evola myself, neither in his corpus nor for catching crypto-fascists, but I thought it would be nice to tell the tale of someone who managed to review Evola's work with a critical eye and finding worth in it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Clarify? thiebes 2003-03-25 05:01 am UTC (link)
	"Against the Neo-Pagans" is a screed against Volkisch Neo-Paganism... I thought it was actually a defense and pointed to various modern misunderstandings of what Paganism is. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Clarify? tim_maroney 2003-03-25 09:22 am UTC (link)
	It's an attack on a particular form of Neo-Paganism on grounds that its vision of Paganism differs from Evola's. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Thematic approach

thiebes
2003-03-24 08:36 am UTC (link)

I think that one theme of the commentary you refer to, by several people, is that it tends to criticize the status quo and suggest contrarian ideas to consider. I think this can be valuable.

There are two primary problems that I see with the approach you describe. First, it mistrusts the reasoning ability of the audience, and assumes that it will be overrun by emotion if they see all the facts of the case when it comes to National Socialism. Unfortunately by avoiding such facts, they draw more attention to them when someone points them out.

The second problem is that it belies fear and an inability to reason on the part of those who avoid discussing the historical context of these philosophers etc. If there is a good reason to consider their work despite their history, then why avoid mentioning the history or react angrily when someone else brings it up? It would be better if they just explained their case regarding the history and moved on to the points that they wanted to discuss in the first place.

However, I think that not all of the people who argue along these thematic lines suffer from these problems, and it is not a constant for those who do.

I agree with

pedicabo's points below. He is asking honest questions.

keith418 has also posted an excellent description of what he thinks the philosophers of the conservative revolution have to offer us here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Thematic approach thiebes 2003-03-24 08:38 am UTC (link)
	I agree with pedicabo's points below er... his points above. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Thematic approach

tim_maroney
2003-03-24 09:40 am UTC (link)

t would be better if they just explained their case regarding the history and moved on to the points that they wanted to discuss in the first place.

Precisely, and this is just what I'm used to in, for instance, academic treatments of Heidegger. No one says we should dismiss his philosophy because he was a Nazi, but there's not a hysterical denial that his Nazi party membership is a legitimate issue. I quite admire Heidegger's philosophy, Pound's poetry, and even Wagner's opera despite its pomposity -- that is no way in conflict with knowing some rather unpleasant facts about these people.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

the difference between asking and badgering

tim_maroney
2003-03-25 07:32 pm UTC (link)

Moved here from this message due to excessive nesting.

Does the above mean that you disregard all contributions of Evola because of his racism? Because that is the impression I get by reading your answer in conjunction with my question and your original entry.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Do you feel that it is possible to get something valuable by carefully analysing his works, both racist and non-racist, in their proper context?

If there were something of value there, yes. I don't know what that would be, but it's certainly possible.

So basically you feel that all his work is tarred by his racism?

I don't know what you mean by tarred, but I don't think I feel that, no.

By tarred with racism I meant that you feel that even his non-racist writings are useless by association with the racist ones.

No, I didn't say that at all. You are the one who keeps saying it, over and over.

As a related example how can anyone utilise A.C.'s system of sexual magick seeing as it is, or so you would have us believe, built upon mysogynistic principles?

I didn't say people should refuse to use anyone's writings because the creator had problems.

Does this mean that we need to throw A.C. into the dustbin and start from scratch?

No. Let's see, I've said that how many times now? Why are you still asking the same question?

Where have I declared that your position is that you "believe that if a thinker has any unpleasant aspects in their background, they must be discarded."

When you said "how can anyone utilise A.C.'s system of sexual magick" due to his misogyny.

Furthermore where did I ask you how you "can possibly embrace any part of Crowley given the principle you falsely ascribe to me."

When you said "does this mean that we need to throw A.C. into the dustbin."

What I don't get is this never-ending hunt for socalled crypto-fascists.

I'm not hunting for crypto-fascists. I didn't accuse anyone here of being a fascist, crypto or otherwise. I'm discussing factual aspects of certain creators' lives and work.

I can only assume that my questions are causing you too much distress but that is really not my problem.

Yes, answering the same question a half-dozen times or so, and still not having my answer accepted or acknowledged, is highly annoying. Fancy that.

Come back if you want to try having a conversation instead of indulging in repetitive, peevish badgering. Otherwise, you have outstayed your welcome.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

I only see someone annoyed...

pedicabo
2003-03-26 12:22 am UTC (link)

by me asking questions and in that accusing me of doing several things. Fancy that.

I found your answers being so vague that I had to ask again to see if I understood them correctly, because it seemed in the past that whenever I assumed something was your answer, you justclaimed you never had written anything such.

I understand that I have outstayed my welcome here Tim. I don't mind. Cheers.

Next time I come I will try to root for you instead :p

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…