Evola: about Miscegenation and the tripartite division of the Race in Body, Soul and Spirit

“While in a “thoroughbred” horse or cat the biological element constitutes the central one, and therefore can legitimately be narrowed down to it every racial consideration, this is certainly not the case for man or, at least, for every man worthy of this name, which is yes a biological and antropological reality, but connected to elements and forces and laws of different character, superbiological, just as real as the first and whose influence on the first can often be decisive”.

“The distinction in the human being of three different principles, of body, soul and spirit, is fundamental for the traditional view. Starting from such view, it must be recognized that the inequality of mankind is not only physical, biological or anthropological, but also psychical and spiritual. Men are different not only in body, but also in soul and spirit. In accordance with this, the doctrine of race must be articulated in three degrees. The racial problem must therefore be placed for each of the three elements. The racist consideration of man as body, as a purely natural and biological entity, is the task that belongs to the doctrine of the race of first degree. Follows the consideration of man since he is soul, that is the study of the race of the soul. As crowning, we’ll have a doctrine of the race of third degree, that is the racial study of man since he is not only body and soul, but, in addition, spirit”.

“The racism of first degree, having to consider the body’s data and, in general, that aspect of the human being, according to which he obeys to purely natural, biological, anthropological, constitutional laws and determinisms, can legitimately assume the research methods used, in general, by the natural sciences. In front of the environment the race has a certain amplitude of reaction, the type can mutate, but in a transitory and contingent manner, the same way as an elastic body that resumes its shape, once the action of the force that deformed it has ceased. As a determinant, essential, decisive and permanent, is however always considered this internal racial hereditary element, always ready to reassert itself”.

“As racism of second degree one must consider a theory of the race of the soul and a typology of the soul of the races. Such a racism has to detect the elements, in their way primary and irreducible, that act from the inside, causing groups of individuals to manifest a constant way of being or “style” in terms of acting, thinking, feeling. Here we arrive at a new concept of the racial purity of a given type: it is no longer the case to see if, like in the racism of first degree, a given individual presents that given group of physical characteristics or, also, generically characterological, which make it conform to the erditary type, but it is about establishing if the race of the body brought by a given individual is the appropriate expression, in compliance, of his race of the soul, and vice versa. If this occurs, the type is pure also according to the survey of second degree”.

“Keep in mind, for example the phenomenon of the comprehension. In reality there are too many cases of people, that are exactly of the same race of the body, of the same stock, sometimes even – as brothers or fathers and children – of the same blood in the most real sense, but nevertheless they fail to understand each other. A frontier separates their souls, their way of feeling and seeing is different and against this the common race of the body and the common blood can do nothing. There is a possibility of comprehension, and therefore of true solidarity, of profound unity, only where exists a common “race of the soul”. Come into question, here, subtle elements, of an instinctive sensibility. While for long years nothing has been suspected, in a given circumstance can happen that a given person with his way of acting gives us the net feeling that it “is of another race” and, then, there will be nothing more to do with it, there may be, with it, relations of various nature, but always at an intimate restraint, at an intimate distance”.

“Let us now go and say something about the racist research of third degree, having for its object, as known, the races of the spirit. This is, indeed, the research of the race according to its ultimate root, wherever we talk about normal civilizations and of superior human strains; root, already communicating with super-personal, super-ethnic metaphysical forces. For such a research, the specific way to conceive both the sacred and the supernatural, rather than the relationship of man with respect to it, the vision of life in the highest sense, furthermore, the whole world of symbols and myths, constitute a matter so positive and objective, as for the racism of first degree are the facial indices and the cranial structures”.

“It is evident that, kept in mind all this, the problem itself of the hybrids and of their effects must be studied much more in-depth compared to what is usually done, as long as the doctrinal field is maintained, without looking for, instead, suitable suggestions for their practical utility. In general, the perniciousness of the hybrids should certainly be acknowledged, and it is of course all the more evident, as much as the racial elements are of the two parts are definitely heterogeneous. Then we stress, that the deleterious character of the hybrids is not revealed much in the determinations of degenerate and deformed human types compared to their original race of the body, but especially in the realization of cases, in which interior and exterior no longer match, in which the race of the body can be in contrast with the that of the soul and, this, in turn, can contradict the race of the spirit, or vice versa, thus giving rise to dilacerated beings, semi-hysterical, to beings that, in themselves, are no longer, so to speak, no one at home. And when no inner resistance, no awakening of the primordial forming force occurs and, instead, to the previous hybridizations new ones are added, the result is the creation of a true ethnic amalgam, of a disarticulated mass, shapeless, semi-leveled, for which starts seriously to become true the immortal principle of the universal equality”.

Note: you can interchange the term “soul”, in reality quite ambiguous, with any of these terms: “mind”, “character”, “personality”.

04bis

Related posts: Evola: about Work, Economy and LifeEvola: about Christianism, Chivalry and the Nordic-Germanic vision of LifeEvola: about Initiation, Immortality, Death and RebirthLost Wisdom

Advertisements

Lost Wisdom

The one and only video interview at our disposal – with english subtitles – where Julius Evola, for about an hour, discusses a wide range of topics from him already deepened in his most important books. A precious and effective testimony that I wish to share with my readers:

Related posts: Evola: about Work, Economy and Life.Evola: about Christianism, Chivalry and the Nordic-Germanic vision of LifeEvola: about Initiation, Immortality, Death and Rebirth.

Evola: about Initiation, Immortality, Death and Rebirth

“To explain ourselves, is necessary to refer to a fundamental traditional teaching, after all already mentioned: to the one concerning the two natures. There is the nature of the immortals and there is the nature of the mortals; there is the superior region of <<those-who-are>> and there is the inferior region of the <<becoming>>”.

“The passage from the one to the other was considered possible, but on an exceptional basis and under the condition of an essential and effective transformation, positive, from a way of being to another way of being. Such transformation was achieved by means of the initiation in the strictest sense of the term. Through the initiation some men escaped from one nature and conquered the other, thus ceasing of being men. Their appearance in the other form of existence constituted, in the order of this last, a rigorously equivalent event to that of the generation of the physical birth. They were therefore re-born, they were re-generated”.

“To the eternal sleep, to the larval existence in Hades, to the dissolution thinked as destiny of all those for whom the forms of this human life constituted the beginning and the end – would not escape therefore that those who already alive have been able to orient their consciousness towards the superior world. The Initiated, the Adepts are at the limit of such path. Obtained the <<remembrance>>, according to the expressions of Plutarch they become free, they go without constraints, crowned they celebrate the <<mysteries>> and see on the earth the crowd of those who are not initiated and that are not <<pure>> press and push themselves in the mud and in the darkness”.

“To tell the truth, the traditional teaching about the postmortem has always stressed the existing difference between survival and immortality. Can be conceived various modalities, more or less contingents, of survival for this or that principle or complex of the human being. But this has nothing to do with immortality, which can only be thinked as <<olympic immortality>>, as a <<becoming gods>>. Such a conception lasted in the West until the hellenic antiquity. From the doctrine indeed of the <<two natures>> proceeded the knowledge of the destiny of a death, or of a precarious, larval survival for the ones, of a conditioned immortality (conditioned by the initiation) for the others”.

“It was the vulgarization and the abusive generalization of the truth exclusively valid for the initiates – vulgarization that began in some degenerate forms of orphism and had then broad development with christianism – to give birth to the stange idea of the <<immortality of the soul>>, extended to any soul and subtracted to each condition. Since then until today, the illusion continues in the various forms of the religious and <<spiritualistic>> thought: the soul of a mortal is immortal – the immortality is a certainty, not a problematic possibility. Thus established the misunderstanding, perverted in that way the truth, the initiation could no longer appear necessary: its value of real and effective operation could no longer be understood. Every really transcendent possibility was little by little abolished. And when they continued to talk about <<rebirth>>, the whole thing by and large ran out in a matter of sentiment, in a moral and religious meaning, in a more or less indeterminated and <<mystical>> state”.

-Julius Evola

julius1

Related posts: Evola: about Work, Economy and Life.Evola: about Christianism, Chivalry and the Nordic-Germanic vision of Life

Evola: about Christianism, Chivalry and the Nordic-Germanic vision of Life

“The power of the tradition that gave its look to Rome became clear, in respect of Christianism, in the fact, that if the new faith managed to subvert the ancient civilization, it couldn’t really conquer the western world as pure Christianism; that where it reached some greatness, it has exclusively been able to do that by betraying in a certain extent itself: it succeeded more in grace of elements taken from the opposite tradition – thanks to Roman elements and pre-christian classical elements – than in grace of the Christian element in its original form. In fact, Christianism <<converted>> the western man only externally; it constituted its <<faith>> in the most abstract sense, while the effective life of these continued to obey to forms, more or less materialized, of the opposite tradition of action and, later, in the Middle-Ages, to an ethos that again had to be imprinted essentially by the aryan-nordic spirit. Theoretically, the west accepted Christianism, – and that Europe was able to accommodate, in such a way, many motives related to the jewish and levantine conception of life is something that ever anew fills the historian of wonder – practically, it remained pagan. The result was then a hybridism. Even in its attenuated and catholic romanized form the christian faith represented an obstruction, that took away to the western man the possibility to integrate his authentic, irrepressible way of being through a conception, congenial to him, of the sacred and of relations with the sacred”.

“Catholicism took shape through the rectification of various extremist aspects of the Christianism of the origins, the organization of a ritual corpus, dogmatic and symbolic beyond of the simple mystical-soteriological element, the absorption and the adaptation of both doctrinal and organizational elements drawn from the romanity and the classical civilization generally speaking. That is how Catholicism presents sometimes <<traditional>> traits, which however must not lead to misunderstanding: what in Catholicism has a real traditional trait is very little christian and what in it is christian is very little traditional”.

***

“By having as an ideal the hero more than the saint, the winner more than the martyr; placing the sum of all values in fidelity and in honour more than in the <<caritas>> and in humility; seeing in vileness and in shame a worse evil than sin; knowing very little about not to resist evil and of repaying evil with goodness – intending much more to punish the unjust and the wicked, excluding from its ranks he who literally adhered to the christian precept of <<do not kill>>; having as principle not to love the enemy, but to fight him and to be magnanimous only after having won it – in all this the cavalry affirmed almost without alteration an aryan ethic within a world only nominally christian”.

***

“The life of the ancient nordic-germanic societies was based on three principles of personality, of freedom and of fidelity. To it was totally alien both the promiscuity of communities and the inability of the individual to valorize itself if not in the context of a given abstract institution. Here freedom consists, for the individual, in the measure of nobility. But this freedom is not anarchic and individualistic, it is able of a dedication beyond the person, it knows the transfiguring value proper to the principle of fidelity in front of those who are worthy of recognition, and to which one subjects himself voluntarily. In this way were formed groups of faithful around leaders to which could well be applied the old saying: <<The supreme nobility of a roman Emperor is of being not a master of slaves but a lord of free men, who loves freedom even in those who serve him>>; and the State, almost according to the ancient aristocratic roman precept, had as center the council of chiefs, each one free, lord of his land and in his land, leader of the group of those faithful to him. Beyond this council, the unity of the State and, in a certain way, its super-political aspect was incarnated in the King, as these belonged – differently from the simple military leaders – to one of the strains of divine origin: Amals, the <<heavenly>>, the <<pure>>, was a name of the kings among the Goths. None impersonal <<duty>> and none impersonal <<service>> existed, everywhere there were relationships of command and obedience strongly personalized and based on freedom, on agreement and on fidelity. In this way the idea of the free personality remained the foundation of each unit and each hierarchy”.

-Julius Evola

evola

Evola: about Work, Economy and Life

gqujafp

“It must be stated in no uncertain terms that everything that is economy and economical interest as fulfillment of material needs and of the more or less artifical appendixes of those, has had, have and will always have a subordinated function in a normal humanity, that beyond this sphere must distinguish an order of superior values, political, spiritual, heroic, an order that doesn’t know and doesn’t accept classes on an economical level, that doesn’t know of <<proletarians>> nor of <<capitalists>>, an order, only in function of which must be defined those things for which really has value to live and to die”.

“So it can be legitimately stated that the so called <<elevation of the social conditions>> has to be considered not as a good thing, but as an evil, when the price is the enslavement of the individual to the productive mechanism and to the social conglomerate, the degeneration of the State in <<State of work>> and of society in <<society of consumerism>>, the elimination of every qualitative hierarchy, the atrophy of every spiritual sensibility and of every <<heroic>> capacity in the more broad sense of the word”.

“The fundamental idea was that work doesn’t served to bind but to release man: to enable him to follow more worthy interests, once regulated what is requested by the needs of the existence. None economical valour seemed as deserving that to it one had to sacrifice one’s independence and that the search for the means to the existence undertook beyond measure the existence itself”.

“The turning point has been the advent of a conception of life that instead of maintain the needs within natural limits looking for the achievement of that who really is worth of human effort, has had as ideal the growth and artificial moltiplication of the very needs, but also of the resources to satisfy them, without regard for the growing slavery that, in force of an unavoidable law, that is what it was to be, first for the individual and then for the masses”.

“One of the features of the economical age according to its more sleazy and plebeian aspects is indeed this species of auto-sadism, that consists in the glorification of work as an ethical valour and essential duty, and in the conception in the sense of work of any form of activity. To a future, more normal humanity there will not be perversion that will appear more singular of this, where again, the means becomes the aim”.

“The fundamental point, here, is indeed to be able to recognize that it doesn’t exist external economical growth and social prosperity that is worth and to whose flatters one should not absolutely resist when counterpart will be an essential limitation of the liberty and space required so that each one can be able to realize what is possible to him beyond the sphere conditioned by matter and by the needs of the ordinary life”.

“In the modern world, if it has been deprecated <<the unjustice>> of the caste system, even more have been stigmatized the ancient civilizations that knew slavery and has been ascribed as a pride of the modern times to have vindicated the principle of <<human dignity>>. What instead is worth to be put in relief, is that, if there is ever been a civilization of slaves, that is exactly the modern civilization. None traditional civilization ever viewed masses as numerous condemned to a dark, disanimated, automatic work: slavery, that has not even as counterpart the high stature and the tangible reality of figures as lords or dominators, but that is instead imposed through the tiranny of the economical factor and the absurd structures of a more or less collectivized civilization. And since the modern vision of life, materialistic, has stolen to the individual every possibility to confer to his own destiny something transfigurant, to see in it a sign and a symbol, so the slavery of today is the more grim and the more desperate of how many have ever been known”.

– Julius Evola

Feminism seen by a Baron and a Wolf

Dear Europeans,

Feminism is one of the (many) evils of our modern world. Its fruits have as names “brainwash” and “sterilization”: more and more of our best women are eating or trying desperately to eat this horrible, unhealthy and malefic fruit cultivated in the Middle East but, at least, that rotten tree doesn’t produce enough of them (i.e. there are not enough “high-rank” jobs and some woman are just excluded from the party and will have enough free time to know a good man and start a proper family…poor unfortunate girls…). Few are today those who deliberately run away from this utterly unhealthy tree to find beauty and happiness in a flowery meadow.

What I mean with “cultivated in the Middle East”, you say? Well, let me present you the founders and eminent figures behind the ideology we are talking about:

00jewish-feminists00

Surely we have not found “diversity” here…

Now, I just wish to share with you the perspective on Feminism of two European Traditionalists:

Julius Evola on Feminism:

“We can’t ask ourselves if “the woman” is superior or inferior “to man” more than we can ask ourselves if water is superior or inferior to fire. Therefore, for each of the sexes the criterion of measurement cannot be given from the opposite sex, but exclusively from the “idea” of their own sex. The only thing that can be done is, in other terms, establish the superiority or the inferiority of a certain woman according to her being more or less near to the female typicity, to the pure or absolute women; and analogous thing also applies to man. The “demands” of modern woman derives, therefore, from wrong ambitions, besides from a complex of inferiority – from the wrong idea that a woman as such, as “only woman”, is inferior to man. Rightfully has been said that feminism has not fighted for the “rights of woman” but rather, without realizing it, for the right of woman to be the same as a man: thing that, even if it were possible outside of the exterior practicistic-intellectual plane just said, would be equivalent to the right of woman to distort herself, to degenerate. The only qualitative criterion is, let us repeat, that of the degree of more or less perfect realization of one’s own nature. There is no doubt that a woman that is perfectly woman is superior to a man that is imperfectly man, in the same way as a peasant loyal to the land, who performs perfectly his functions, is superior to a king unable to perform his task”.

evola1_fondo-magazine

Varg Vikernes on Feminism: An Argument against Feminism

Ave Venus! Hail Freyja! Hail to the European Goddesses!