julius evola and russian traditionalism

7/27/2019 Julius Evola and Russian Traditionalism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/julius-evola-and-russian-traditionalism 1/5

JULIUS EVOLA AND RUSSIAN TRADITIONALISM

By Alexandre Douguine

1) The Discovery of Evola in Russia

Julius Evolas works were discovered in the 1960s by the veryesoteric group of anti-communist intellectual thinkers known as"the dissidents of the right." They were a small circle of peoplewho had conscientiously refused to participate in the "culturallife" of the USSR and who had instead chosen an undergroundexistence for themselves. The disparity between the presentedSoviet culture and the actual Soviet reality was almost entirelywhat made them seek out the fundamental principles that couldexplain the origins of that evil, absolutist idea. It was throughtheir refusal of communism that they discovered certain works byanti-modernist and traditionalist authors: above all, the books byRene Guenon and by Julius Evola. Two central personalities animatedthis group -- the Islamic philosopher Geidar Djemal and thenonconformist poet Eugene Golovine. Thanks to them, these"dissidents of the right" knew the names and the ideas of the twogreatest traditionalists of our century. In the 1970s, one of thefirst translations of an Evola work (The Hermetic Tradition)

appeared and it was distributed within the group according to themethods of Samizdat [note: Samizdat was the system in the formerUSSR through which officially "impermissible" books made their wayaround the country; generally these were copies of copies and notwell-produced, but they tended to get their point across.].However, the original translations were particularly bad in qualitybecause they were made by incompetent amateurs far removed from thegroup of authentic intellectual traditionalists.

In 1981, a translation of Heidnische Imperialismus appeared in asimilar manner as the only book of its type available from theLibrary of Lenin in Moscow. This time around, the distributionthrough Samizdat had become much larger and the quality of the

translation was much better. Little by little, they moved the truecurrent of traditionalism away from anti-communism and towardsanti-modernism by extending their complete refusal of Sovietexistence to a rejection of the modern world, very much inaccordance with the integral traditionalist vision. It should benoted, though, that the ideas of the traditionalists in question atthis particular point in time were very far-removed from the other"dissidents of the right" who were generally orthodox Christians,monarchists, and nationalists. Evola, then, was more popular amongthose who were interested in spiritualism in a broader sense: yoga,theosophy [note: a religious/philosophical school of thoughtfounded by Russian occultist Helena Blavatsky], psychism [note: atheosophic concept relating to all mental phenomena; C.G. Jung

discussed it occasionally as well], and so forth.

Throughout Perestroika, all forms of anticommunist dissidencemanifested themselves and from the "dissidents of the right" camethe current political and cultural ideologies of the Right -nationalist, nostalgic, anti-liberal, and anti-Western. In thiscontext and after the development of strict traditionalist ideas asa result of Glasnost, the names of Guenon and Evola were introducedinto Russias cultural ensemble. The first works of Evolasappeared in the 1990s in widely-read parts of the press known to be



"patriotic" or "conservative" and the subject of traditionalismbecame the theme among virulent polemics and was a very big issuein the Russian Right as a whole. Papers like Elementy, NachSovremennik, Mily Anguel, Den, etc., began to publish fragments ofEvolas writings or articles inspired by him or ones in which hisname and quotes were referenced. Little by little, the"conservative" camp came to have an ideological structure thatproduced a separation between the old, nostalgic, monarchist Rightand the other more open, non-conformist, and less-orthodox Right -sometimes referred to as the "novye pravye" in Russian, one may beinclined to draw parallels to the "nouvelle droite," but it was aquite separate and altogether different phenomenon from theEuropean ND. One could categorize this second group of "patriots"as being part of the "Third Way" or "national revolutionaries" andso forth. The breaking point came exactly over the acceptance orrejection of Evolas ideas or perhaps more appropriately over partsof Evolas ideas that could not be considered "conservative" or"reactionary" in nature, as in the idea of the "ConservativeRevolution" and the "Revolt Against the Modern World."

Recently, the first book -- Heidnische Imperialismus -- had 50,000copies published. A television show devoted to Evola has even beenmade for a popular channel. Thus, one can see that Russiasdiscovery of Evola has taken place on a rather broad scale. He who

once constituted the hypermarginal intellectual nucleus of Russiabefore Perestroika has now become a significant political andideological phenomenon. But it is clear that Evola wrote his booksand formulated his ideas in a very different temporal, cultural,historical, and ethnic context. This, therefore, poses a problem:what parts of Evolas philosophy are relevant to modern Russia andwhat parts need to be reworked, improved, or even rejected in thesecircumstances? This requires a brief analysis comparing andcontrasting the sacred traditionalism of Evola and the strictlyRussian political phenomenon.

2) Against the Modern West

From the very beginning, it is obvious that the rejection of theprofane and venal modern world that manifested itself in WesternCivilization in the last few centuries is common to both Evola andthe entirety of the intellectual tradition of Russian slavophilia.Russian authors like Homyakov, Kirievsky, Aksakov, Leontiev, andDanilevsky among philosophers as well as Dostoevsky, Gogol, andMerejkovsky among novelists criticized the Western world in almostthe exact same language as did Evola. One can see that they all hadthe same hate for the rule of the mob -- that is to say, the moderndemocratic system -- and that they regarded it as spiritualdegradation and total profanity. Similarly, one can also see thesame diagnoses for the sickness of the modern world -- profaneFreemasonry, deviant Judaism, the advancement of the plebeian, the

deification of "reason" -- in Evola and the "conservative" Russianculture. Obviously, the reactionary tendency here is shared, andthus Evolas criticism of the West is totally in-step with andacceptable to the party line of Russian conservatism.

More often than not, one can see that Evolas criticisms are moreclosely related to the Russian mentality rather than the broaderEuropean one -- the same type of generalization, the frequentevocation of mythological and mystical goals, the distinct notionthat the internal spirit world is organically separated from the



immediate modern realities of perversion and deviance. In general,the Russian conservative tradition of contemporarily explaininghistorical events in a mythological sense is somewhat obligatory.The appeal of the supernatural/irrational level here is in perfectstep with the Russian mindset that renders rational explanation theexception rather than the rule.

One may also note the influence that Russian conservativesexercised on Evola: in his works, he often cites Dostoevsky,Merejkovsky (whom he personally knew) and several other Russianauthors. On the other hand, the frequent references he makes toMalynsky and Leon de Poncins partially carry on thecounter-revolutionary tradition so typical of being European. Onecan also cite his references to Serge Nilus, the compiler of thefamous Protocols of the Elders Of Zion, which Evola reedited inItaly.

At the same time, its clear that Evola knew relatively littleabout the Russian conservative milieu, and in fact he was not evenparticularly interested in it owing to his antichristianidiosyncrasy. A propos of the Orthodox tradition, he only made afew insignificant comments. Yet the similarity between his positiontowards the crisis of the modern world and the anti-modernism ofthe Russian authors is due largely to the community of organic

reactions -- Great Men and 'individuals in the case of Evola andheroes in the case of the Russians. But thanks to this spontaneityof anti-modern convergences, the gravity of Evolas deviation ismade all the more interesting and all the more critical.

At any rate, this interpretation of Evolas ideas fits perfectlywithin the framework of the modern "novye pravye" ideology to theextent that the latter actually brings more to his vision of thedegradation of modernity by sometimes applying his ideas moreglobally, more radically, and more deeply. In this regard, Evolastheories are very much accepted in modern Russia, whereanti-Westernism is an extremely potent ideological and politicalfactor.

3) Rome and Third Rome

One particular layer of Evola's thoughts is felt by the Russians tobe of imminent and extreme importance: his praise for the ImperialIdeal. Rome represents the focal point of Evola's worldview. Thissacred living power which had manifested itself all across theEmpire was to Evola the very essence of the West's traditionalheritage. To Evola, the ruins of Nero's palace and of Romanbuildings were like a direct testament to a physical, organicsanctity whose integrity and continuity had been shattered by theKafkaesque "castle" of the Catholic Vatican Guelph. [NOTE: Forthose not familiar with Kafka's work, this is a reference to his

book entitled "the Castle," which is about a man who takes whatshould be a relatively simple job in a distant place surveying theland of a local noble, but who is unable to begin -- much lesscomplete -- his job owing to the opposition from the bureaucracy ofhis own employer (whom he never meets in-person and only through aproxy or a proxy of a proxy) and who is further frustrated by thefact that the Count's huge, oppressive castle is always visiblefrom any part of the town but that he can never actually go thereto begin his task. Obviously this is a metaphorical indictmentagainst the overall judeo-christian system and how it relates to



seemingly unattainable salvation. Similarly, Guelph refers to aGerman/Italian coalition of the Middle Ages that supported theroyal house of Guelph against the Imperial German Ghibellinedynasty that was hostile to the Pope and to Catholicism.] HisGhibelline train of thought was clear: Imperium against Church,Rome against the Vatican, the immanent and organic sacralityagainst the devotational and sentimental abstractions of faith,implicitly dualist and Phariseean.

But a similar line of thought is seemingly naturally felt by theRussians, whose historical destiny has always been profoundly tiedto that of Imperium. This notion was dogmatically rooted in theOrthodox Concept of staret [NOTE: the starets were spiritualadvisers, but not priests: Rasputin could be considered one ofthese] philosophy -- "Moscow: the Third Rome." It should be notedthat the "first Rome" in this cyclic orthodox interpretation wasnot Christian Rome, but rather Imperial Rome, because the secondRome (or the "new Rome") was Constantinople, the capital of theChristian Empire. Thus the same idea of "Rome" held by the OrthodoxRussians corresponds to the understanding of sacrality like theimportance of that which is Sacred and such as the necessary andinseparable "symphony" between the spiritual authority and thetemporal realm. For traditional orthodoxy, the catholic separationbetween the King and the Pope is simply unimaginable and close to

blasphemy, and this very concept is actually called the "Latinheresy."

Again, one can see the perfect convergence between Evola's dogmaand the commonplace mindset of Russian conservative thought. Andstill again, the clear spiritual exaltation of Imperium in Evola'sbooks is of inestimable value to the Russians in terms of what theyview as their true and traditional identity. The "symphonicimperialism" of the Orthodox Russians easily brings to mind JuliusEvola's concept of "pagan imperialism," or rather "Ghibellineimperialism."

There is one other important detail that bears mentioning here.

It's known that the "author of the Third Reich," Artur Müller vanden Bruck, was deeply influenced by the writings of FeodorDostoevsky, for whom the concept of "the Third Rome" was vitallysignificant. One can see van den Bruck's same eschatological visionof "the Final Empire," born from a metaphorical convergence betweenthe ideas of the paracletic montanists [NOTE: montanists were theancient forerunners of the contemporary pentecostal sects, i.e.,the ones who believe in personal divine revelation and speaking intongues] and the prophecies of Joachim de Flora [NOTE: de Flora wasthe abbot of Corazzo who authored a very prescient essay about the"age of reason" around the year 1200 in which he wrote "in the newday, man would not have to rely on faith, for everything would befounded on knowledge and reason."]. Van den Bruck -- whose ideas

were sometimes cited by Evola -- adapted the concept of the ThirdRome from the Russian Orthodox tradition and applied it to Germany,where it was subsequently elaborated upon spiritually and sociallyby the National Socialists. One interesting fact is that ErichMueller, the protegé of Nikisch [NOTE: Ernst Nikisch, a Germannationalist of the same era] -- who was greatly inspired by van denBruck -- once remarked that if the First Reich had been Catholic[NOTE: ie, the Holy Roman Empire], the Second Reich Protestant[NOTE: ie, Prussia under Friedrich the Great], the Third Reichwould have to be exactly Orthodox! But Evola himself participated



largely in the intellectual debates of Germanconservative-revolutionary circles (he was a member of vonGleichen's "Herrenklub," which itself was a continuation of the"Juniklub"founded by van den Bruck) where similary subjects werediscussed in a very lively manner. It's now easy to see another wayin which the Russian conservative mindset is linked to Evola'stheories. Obviously, it's not possible to say their ideas on theseparticular issues were identical, but at the same time, there areextraordinary connections between the two that help to explain theassimilation of Evola's ideas into Russia's mindset, where itsviews are far less "extravagant" than those belonging oftraditional conservative Europe, which is by and largecontemporarily Catholic and Nationalist, and is quite rarelyImperialist.

http://bbs.anus.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000017

julius evola and russian traditionalism

Documents