Spengler: about Modern Man, Traditional Man and the Historical Destiny of Woman and Man

“Instead of a world a city, a single point, in which is gathered the whole life of vast regions, while the rest becomes sterile; instead of a formed people, tied to its land, a new nomad, a parasite, the inhabitant of the big cities, the pure practical man without tradition, taken up in a formless and fluctuant mass, the irreligious, intelligent, sterile man, deeply adverse to the peasant and the landed gentry, that of the peasant is the highest form – this represents a giant step towards the inorganic, towards the end”.

“The metropolis means the cosmopolitanism in place of the <<homeland>>, the cold practical sense in place of the respect for what has been handed down and is matured, the scientistic irreligiosity as dissolution of the previous religious fervour, the <<society>> in place of the State, the natural rights in place of those acquired”.

“The last man of the metropolises doesn’t want to live anymore: as a type, as a mass, not as an individual; in this collective being the fear of death fades. What fills with a deep and inexplicable anguish the true peasant, that is the idea of the extinction of the family and the loss of the name, ceases now to have a meaning. The continuation of one’s own blood in the visible world is no longer felt as a duty for this blood, the destiny of being the last of a lineage is no longer felt as a tragedy. Not that today the possibility to beget children has vanished; if the offspring is missing is above all because the intelligence, come to an extreme strengthening, no longer finds a reason for it. Transpose yourselves in the soul of the peasant that from primordial times lives in the same piece of land, namely that he bought it to unite himself to it with his blood. In such a land, he has roots as the grandson of his ancestors, and as the ancestor of the future grandsons. His home, his property: this here doesn’t mean a fleeting relation between the body and the goods for a brief period of time, but rather a lasting and inner relation between the eternal land and the eternal blood: only with this, only with the sedentarity in a spiritual sense the great seasons of the cycle of existence, generation, birth and death, obtain that metaphysical aura which symbolically fixes itself in the customs and in the religion of all the non-nomadic populations of the countryside”.

“The eternal policy of the woman is the conquest of the man, thanks to which she can become the mother of his children and thus be history, destiny and future. Instead the man, belonging essentially to the other history, wants to have a son as heir, as bearer of his blood and of his historical tradition”.

“However the eternal and secret policy of the woman, that brings us back at the beginnings of the animal kingdom, aspires to distract the man from his mission to bind him completely to the chain of generations, that is like saying to herself. Yet all that happens in the other history, in the male history, has the purpose of protecting and preserving this eternal history of generating and dying, call it what you want: fighting for the house and the hearth, for the woman and the son, for the ancestry, for the nation, for the future”.


Related posts: Spengler: about Cosmic Anguish and the Religious Sentiment of the WorldSpengler: about Time, History and Destiny


Words of Wisdom #38

“We can’t ask ourselves if the “woman” is superior or inferior to the “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 one’s own sex. The only thing that can be done is, in other terms, to 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 and absolute women; and analogous thing also applies to man. The “demands” of modern woman derive, 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 really fighted for the “rights of woman” but rather, without realizing it, for the right of woman to make herself equal to man: thing that, even if it was possible outside of the superficial practical-intellectual plane before mentioned, would be equivalent to the right of woman to distort herself, to degenerate. The only qualitative criterion is, we repeat it, that of the degree of more or less perfect realization of one’s own nature. There is no doubt that a woman who is perfectly woman is superior to a man who is imperfectly man, in the same way as a peasant loyal to the land, who performs perfectly his function, is superior to a king unable to perform his function”.

-Julius Evola


Evola: about Feminism, the Woman and the Responsibility of Man

“After centuries of <<slavery>> the woman has therefore wanted to be free, to be for herself. But the so-called <<feminism>> has not been able to conceive for the woman a personality, if not in imitation of the male one, thus its <<claims>> mask a fundamental distrust of the new woman towards herself, the impotence of the latter to be and be worth as what she is: as a woman and not as a man. For such a misunderstanding, the modern woman has felt a completely imaginary inferiority in being only a woman and almost an offense in being treated <<only as a woman>>. Such has been the origin of a wrong vocation: she, precisely for this, has wanted to take a revenge, to claim her <<dignity>>, to show her <<worth>> – passing to compete with man. Except that the latter was not at all the true man, but rather the artificial man, the puppet man of a standardized, rationalized civilization, not implying almost anything anymore of really differentiated and qualitative”.

“The man, for that matter, like a true irresponsible has permitted, or rather he himself has helped, has pushed the woman in the streets, in the offices, in the schools, in the factories, in all the contaminatory crossroads of modern society and culture. In this manner the last levelling push has been given”.

“Not different the results of western <<emancipation>>, that moreover is already on the road to infect all the world with more speed than a plague. The traditional woman, the absolute woman, in giving herself, not in living for herself, in wanting to be entirely for another being with simplicity and purity, fulfilled herself, belonged to herself, had a heroism of her own – and, deep down, became superior to the common man. The modern woman in wanting to be for herself has destroyed herself. The craved <<personality>> is taking away from her every personality”.

“Having accused the decadence of the modern woman, we should not forget that man is the first responsible of such decadence, in a society ruled by men worthy of this name the woman would have never wanted or been able to take the road along which she is proceeding today. Therefore the real reaction against feminism and every other female deviation is not against the woman, but against the man that should be directed”.

-Julius Evola

Related article: Evola: about Work, Economy and Life