EVOLA ON CHRISTIANITY  evolaasheis.blogspot
"It seems", as you say.

Christianity is a syncretism of many different and, for some of them, antithetical beliefs and knowledge, whether exoteric or of an esoteric nature, ranging from Zoroastrianism and Dyoniasianism to Mithraism, the cult of Osiris and, some say, even Brahmanism, and, least but not last, Judaism ; those heterogeneous beliefs and knowledge were infused and were all mixed into early Christianity, and, as a result, when it came to esoteric knowledge, distorted, that is, applied, according to the 'exoteric' turn of mind of early Christians, to a plane which is not its and on which it can even become dangerous for most people in various respects, not to mention earlier alterations ; the Essenes played a decisive part in the inevitable distortion which resulted from such a mix. This cannot be emphasised enough.

That heterogenous substance is reflected in the multiplicity of rival sects and in the endless doctrinal conflicts which opposed them, doctrinal conflicts of which the Roman 'religion' in particular and pre-Christian cults in general were free. Yet, in terms of spirit, of race of the spirit, it can hardly be denied that Christianity, especially Early Christianity is, so to speak, one. That spirit, which is the Semitic one, is characterised by insurmountable intrinsic contradictions which find expression in all sorts of artificial oppositions, such as the one between matter and spirit, flesh and spirit, and so on. If you focus on the doctrinal conflicts, you can't see the wood for the trees. Let's go further, with Julius Evola and Adolph Hitler : from the point of view we look at things, to put the religious moment before the racial moment is like to put the cart before the horse. We are not saying that it is illegitimate or useless to consider Abrahamic religions from the religious point of view, of course ; all we are saying is that, by focusing on it to the detriment of the racial point of view, you lose sight of the main thing : the spirit, the 'forma mentis' which is behind Christianity and which originates in a plane which lies beyond the strictly religious one. Abrahamic religions - contrary to pre-Christian Aryan cults, which were rooted in a people, in a race, consubstantial with it, and were not conceivable outside that people, that race - are aimed at anyone, regardless of race, except for Judaism. Except for Judaism, which, besides, has never proselytised and still don't encourage conversions. Yet, AS Christianity, or, if you prefer, in its Christian flavour, as is known, it's been a fanatically proselyte religion. Besides, contrary, for example, to ancient Romans and ancient Scandinavians, to limit ourselves to ancient European peoples of Aryan stock, Jews are far from being an homogeneous race, as indicated in the Old Testament itself, so much so that it's always with quotation marks that Evola speaks of the Jewish people as a 'race'. Among other differences between traditional Aryan cults and Judaism, these cannot be emphasised enough.

A sentence of 'Il Mito del sangue', as already pointed out, shows that Evola didn't take seriously the idea, uphold, among others, by Chamberlain in 'The Myth of the Nineteenth Century' and later by Rosenberg in 'The Myth of the Twentieth Century', of the 'Aryan Christ', and, to the best of our knowledge, expressions like 'Aryo- Christians' or 'Aryan Christianity' cannot be found in his work, nor can we find in it any allusion to a 'positive Christianity'. On the other hand, the possibility of a 'positive Catholicism' is discussed in the fifth and last chapter of 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', called 'Our European Symbol'. The reader will be able to find out about Evola's views on this matter in its forthcoming English translation.

As far as the doctrine of the 'Aryan Christ' is concerned, needless to say that one cannot content oneself either with upholding it or with rejecting it for sentimental reasons, without having examined the positive data which have been gathered over the centuries by scholars and others on this much controversial subject. A decisive contribution has been made in this respect by an author specialised in Celsus' work in a meticulous and rigorous well-documented in-depth study which shows that Jesus couldn't but be of Jewish blood. Those who can read French are strongly invited to read it at assoc.wanadoo.fr/cercle.ernest-renan/Celse.htm

Basically, what emerges from it is that the legend of a 'bastard' Jesus, son of Mary and of a Roman soldier called Panthèra, and, therefore, that of an 'Aryan Christ', originates in... the Babylonian Talmud.
Evola As He Is
Administrator
*****

Evola As He Is Avatar

Posts: 165Male

Oct 27, 2019 at 12:08pm
Post Options
Post by Evola As He Is on Oct 27, 2019 at 12:08pm
To Evola, Rosenberg is by far the most authoritative and qualified National Socialist author as far as the racial question is concerned. In 'Il Mito del sangue', he recalls Rosenberg's attempt to establish a 'German National Church' according to a racial world-outlook and quotes the most significant and edifying passages of 'The Myth of the XXth Century' in this connection. He rightly notes that Rosenberg's views have a rather important part in the code of honour of the SS and in the principles upheld and taught in the Ordensburgen, "especially on the ethical plane". "But, he adds, as far as philosophy and spirit are concerned, those who have tried to resume seriously the idea of a new anti-Christian religion have ended up in mere amateurish exercises". Among them, Hauer, von Reventlow, von Ludendorff, Löpmann, as well as Bergmann, whose views Evola gives an insight into. Now, if you look more closely at his views, what strikes you is that they actually haven't got much to do with their plain German-Nordic premises and that, in fact, they try to fight Christianity and to build something new with vague impulses and a doctrinal equipment which feel the effect of a spirit closely akin to the Christian one, that is, of a lunar spirit.

Many questions can't find answers because they are not well set. First, it is not about creating a 'new religion', whether anti- Christian or not, but about coming back to the pre-Christian Aryan cult, to the spirit in which it originates ; it is about 'remembering' it in the Platonic sense. It ensues from this that it is absurd to try to de-christianise a people without having previously extirpate from it everything which, on the plane of the race of the soul and on that of the spirit, bears the mark of Christian influences ; thus, to extirpate, not dogmas, in which, as a French historian of the Middle Ages once pointed out, the people was never interested, but the formative ideas and the influences which have been acting on the people to the point of christianising them, not according to the 'letter', but in 'spirit', without them being conscious of it, and without them realising either that, despite their no longer being practising Christians, their thought, their actions and their attitudes are still greatly determined by Christian moral, a moral which, besides being in stark contradiction and being incompatible with Nordic-Aryan ethic, is obviously hostile to it. This 'slaves moral' is in all likelihood that aspect to which Evola refers in the excerpt you quoted from 'Against the Neo-Pagans'. Now, if you rid Christianity of it, what's left of Christianity? No matter how you look at things, the worthy elements in Christianity are those which were infused into it in the Middle Ages, and which refer more or less directly to that 'older heritage' Evola alludes to, that is, the Nordic one. At this point, a question springs to mind : in a occupied Europe where the few men who are still standing among the ruins have no influence whatsoever on politics and where political schemers are mere lackeys of high finance and of what's behind it, what's the point of trying to re-nordicise the Church when everything we need we can find in the pre-Christian Aryan cults and, what's more, the Church has returned to its first love and is, more than ever, a company with a humanitarian facade ? Assuming that, as was more or less the case in pre-War Germany and in pre-war Italy, European forces manage to come to power again and to neutralise the influence of the 'cultural distorter', would it be worth ?

This neutralisation would require the implementation of measures far more radical and drastic than those taken by the National-Socialist leadership and by Fascist authorities at their time, closely akin to the steps taken, for instance, by Charlemagne against the heathen resistance to the hegemonistic will of the Church in the Early Middle Ages ; to the Stalinian 'purges' in the XIXth century ; or, on a far more positive note from an Aryan standpoint, to the policy conducted, by Augustus as soon as he came to power, by Vlad Dracul II throughout his life, towards the corrupt and unworthy members of the aristocracy of their respective land. Before being able to re-educate, if not a whole people whose spirit, mind, body and soul has been distorted to such an extent that it can no longer be detoxicated and rectified from the inside, at least some of their offspring, so as, as stressed by Evola in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', to allow them to develop organically in them a sound instinct likely to tell them unequivocally what' is 'positive' and what is 'negative' for them as Aryans, it is absolutely necessary to carry out a direct and violent action on them. Rather than to 'surgery' , we'd compare it to a 'lightning strike' policy, a 'Blitz' policy.

A process of re-aryanisation of the very few Europeans who can still be re-aryanised would take time, of course, but the implementation of each of the measures to be taken in the course of that process would have to be lightning, for it to be successful.

In any case, once again, let's not put the cart before the horse. A re-aryanisation would be based on racial and manly grounds or there wouldn't be any re-aryanisation at all.

What makes you think that "a directly and violently 'surgical' approach to what is understood as mainstream Christianity would most likely be psychologically untenable and unhealthy for the broad generality of modern Indoeuropeans"? First, don't you find the current situation already "psychologically untenable" for any average European who has to face daily the anti-European zoological racist policy of the lackeys of the 'cultural distorter' who are in office? What can be more unhealthy in every respect for any sound man than to have to live in a gynaeco-democracy? Then, since most Europeans are no longer practising Christians de facto, why on earth would that plebs mind being no longer Christian de jure ?

In a European State worth of the name, any mother would be allowed to go to church with her young son every Sunday, whether to a Catholic Church, to a Protestant church or to an Orthodox church, if it pleased her. What she would be absolutely prevented from doing, by precise legal measures, would be to become, for instance, a teacher and, therefore, to try hard, with all the energies of resentment and of hatred, to turn young boys into young girls by inculcating them, by means of so-called educational methods greatly derived from psycho- analysis, in feminine values previously distorted by effeminate males and homosexuals, that is to say, in internationalist nonsense. The author of 'Mein Kampf' considered the religious phenomenon in its lunar manifestations as secondary towards the racial element and, aware of the divisions which Christianity had caused among European peoples in the past, did his best not to make again the same mistakes as his predecessors and not to let himself be seduced by the sirens' call : behind Charles IX's persecutions of the Protestants, there was Catherine of Medicis ; behind Louis XIV's persecutions of the Protestants, there was the Marchioness of Maintenon ; behind the Hundred-Years war, there was the divorce of Alienor of Aquitaine, great priestess of courtly love, of the 'religion of love' and idol of modern 'feminists', with Louis VII ; and so on. Maybe for the first time in 1500 years, a man rose in Europe to make it clear that religion could no longer be allowed to be a factor of conflict within the national community and of weakening of the State, while tolerating, in a genuine Roman spirit, any 'European' religion on the German soil as long as it didn't try to undermine the State and the 'Gemeinschaft'. Evola doesn't seem to have been sensitive to that Roman aspect of his character.

Ironically enough, and at the risk of shocking a few 'traditionalists' and even a few 'evolianists', it is clear that, in some respects, Trotsky was not wrong in calling 'religion' "the opium of the people". As a member of the Jewish community, he simply didn't realise how right he was and would have been better inspired to call it the 'opium of the plebs'.

Having said this, the main question about the relations between modern heathenism and Christianity, which is at the heart of your considerations and which has not always been well formulated, remains to be asked.
Evola As He Is
Administrator
*****

Evola As He Is Avatar

Posts: 165Male

Oct 27, 2019 at 12:40pm
Post Options
Post by Evola As He Is on Oct 27, 2019 at 12:40pm
Had he been realist in the higher, Roman, sense, C.J. Jung would have realised that it is precisely in the fact that "the Christ symbol is psychologically inescapable and remains part of the Western psyche and culture", that it "is psychologically necessary and is an irrepressible part of the Western self-understanding and heritage", that the whole problem, for the West, lies, on the spiritual plane. You said it : "irrepressible". This irrepressible need which even some great Western minds have felt for two thousand years to take Christianity and Jesus-Christ as point of reference explains to a large extent why the heathen restoration called for by Evola in 'Heathen Imperialism' failed and couldn't but fail, to the great satisfaction of the Jew. For the Western man, the whole thing has become an obsession, a mania. Hence the various pathological aspects which Western spirituality has assumed for two thousand years. As a matter of fact, to describe Christianity as nothing other than a Jewish plot, a sickly religion of weakness and decadence meant to destroy the Aryan world, on one hand, and to hold his very founder in high esteem to the point of trying to aryanise him, on the other hand, comes within pathology. At this point, things need to be put back in perspective : to Epictete, to Lucian, to Celsius, to Pliny, and so on, Christians appeared as deranged people ; the 'message' they spread, as anti-traditional, anti-Roman. Unlike Rosenberg almost two millennia after, the worthiest elements of the Roman Patriciate would not try to distinguish between 'true Christianity' and 'corrupt Christianity', almost in the same way as, nowadays, blind, even in nationalist circles, when driven into a corner, work themselves to death convincing you that current democracy is not 'true democracy' and looking for 'true democracy' : Christianity appeared to the best elements of Roman aristocracy as it is, as a whole, as an aberration from their standpoint.

So it appeared to Evola, at least to the writer of 'Heathen Imperialism'. He didn't tie himself up in the two alternatives which the author is right to state "the Christian opponent of Judaism (only) has". He didn't tie himself up in them because he did not oppose Judaism from a religious standpoint, but from a racial and spiritual standpoint, which allows one to overcome those simplistic paralysing alternatives. Doesn't the truth seeker easily lose his way in the maze of theological speculations of which we are reminded of in www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p335_Whisker.html/, and which were unknown to cults of Indo-European origin? Once again, what's the point of dreaming of "a de-feminized, knightly, hierarchical- initiatory Christianity resurrected on an 'ariognostic' and Eckhartian basis", when all we need we have in our own tradition, which is not Christianity? Even assuming that Christianity was actually corrupted, the fact remains that its god is conceived of in a theistic manner, whether by 'orthodox' or by 'heretical' Christians, one way or the other, and that this conception is in striking contrast with the way Indo-European peoples used to experience the divine.

Waddell's considerations on the racial origin of Jesus-Christ are as deeply interesting as highly conjectural. What tends to compromise the signification of his comparative research is his rather systematic bringing together historical characters of ancient Egypt and of Summerian civilisation and figures of the English royal family of his time, that is, the Victorian era, and his not discriminating Semitic sun-cults, involving gods "that change, experience birth and passion (...), are subject to the law of death and rebirth", from Aryan ones, based on "unchanging, perfect essences, removed from the lower world of destiny, bright as the sun and sidereal natures (...)".
Evola As He Is
Administrator
*****

Evola As He Is Avatar

Posts: 165Male

Oct 27, 2019 at 1:29pm
Post Options
Post by Evola As He Is on Oct 27, 2019 at 1:29pm
You have already explained your 'socially pragmatic' position, that's right, and we have already showed how fanciful it is in our replies to your post on so-called Aryan-Christianity, an absurd concept which, unsurprisingly, has become extremely fashionable across the Atlantic in the second part of the twentieth century. A few weeks ago, you went at it again with that bedtime stories for the children according to which, along protestant lines, it is told that modern Christianity has nothing to do with ancient Christianity : "Let us learn, you said, to differentiate between modern Christianity and ancient Christianity". You are then showed by various irrefutable arguments that early Christianity was Marxism in embryo with respect to the question at hand here, but that doesn't prevent you from returning to the attack, from a different angle though : you shift the emphasis on a so-called 'virile Christianity', whose non existence has been showed in our posts on so-called 'Aryan Christianity'. What's next? Sherwin-White's (sic) thoughts on 'Racial Prejudice in Ancient Rome'? The title sounds promising.

Meanwhile, you have discovered that "the Bible clearly records the white Mediterranean phenotype as normative" and you have inferred from Gen. 12:11, 24:16, 26:7; I Samuel 16:11-12, 17:42; , 6:10; Lamentations 4:7, "etc", that "The ancient Israelites were racially and phenotypically similar to the ancient Romans as Mediterranean Whites". You cannot be serious, can you? One is free to fantasise about the "godly form of Sarah", but one shouldn't mistake the wild imaginings of a medieval Jew fantasising, millennia after, about "Sarah" with realities : far from having become "catastrophically mixed with slave" over time, Jews are originally a racial mix : "Ethnically, and originally, very different bloods have flowed into the Jewish people ; the Old Testament itself speaks of many tribes and races contained in this people" ('Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem'). "Modern race research has come to admit, in it, the presence of elements even of Aryan or non-Semitic origins, as seems to be the case in particular for the Pharisees" (ibid.) : hence Jews with blond hair and blue eyes, in short with Aryan physical features. It ensues from this that what the Jewish people has tried fiercely to maintain for millennia is not a 'purity of blood', which it never possessed, but precisely the contrary : a mixed blood, at a certain stage, at the original stage of this mixing. Only a people originating in a racial mixing can be led to conceive the monstrous project of mixing all races and to implement it as soon as it becomes omnipotent on the material plane.

Negro blood was one of those "very different bloods" which originally "flowed into the Jewish people". The excerpts of the works of Jewish and Arab authors you quoted on Negro remind of the zoological racism of colonials, whose veins originate in Jewish racism. In any case, you must be the only one to see in them an acknowledgment of the hierarchy of races.

Within the context of academic studies, it may be interesting to research "the statements of the early Christian ChurchFathers and theologians on racial matters", which, for some of them, may be "surprisingly 'unpolitically correct', and yet committed them only as individuals, and not as representatives of the Church. This is the official position of the Church on what is now called the racial question : "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring", and it is this subversive demagogic 'dogma' which has constituted the principle according to which the Church has developed its action in this field for two millennia. Not Saint Endues' "revealing instruction". Paul's statement was not poetry, it was a declaration of war against Roman civilisation and all the values on which it was based.

This doesn't mean that ethnicity was not important in early Christianity. In 'Why This New Race?', through analyses of Clement of Alexandria's 'Protreptikos', Origen's 'ContraCelsum', and the 'Shepherd of Hermas', D.K. Buell shows how some early Christians philosophers and theologians "used ethnic reasoning to define Christians as a distinct people within classical and ancient Near East society and in intra-Christian debates about what constituted Christianness" ; used ideas about race and ethnicity to make universalising claims about Christianness "by defining Christianity as a race, open to all peoples" : do you only realise how subversive this is? How deranged one has to be to come to this? In other words, instead of denying race purely and simply, some early Christians perverted its concept, by emptying words like 'genos' and 'ethnos' from their content, or, if you want, by using them metaphorically, before striving to eradicate race as a living reality. This excerpt from the review is edifying, from our point of view : "In spite of Buell's efforts to inscribe this sort of cosmological universalism within the parameters of ethnic reasoning, it remains difficult (at least to this reviewer) to escape the sense that it is precisely in these sorts of expressions that Christians seem to be looking for an identity that transcends the particularity of racial identities; by heralding the restoration of a time before nations or races, Christians like Clement and Origen (at least in those few passages noted by Buell) simultaneously envision an identity that is post-national/racial. The Gnostic Tripartite Tractate is succinct on this historical schema: "the end will receive a unitary existence just as the beginning is unitary" (cited at 83). Such a sentiment shuns the plurality entailed by ethnic particularity, while the pneumatic genos of the Tractate, if denoting "race" rather than "type" (as Buell translates it at first, 83), contains a collectivity of souls who can potentially never come into contact with each other and share a communal way of life, hence becoming so vacuous as to scarcely carry the cluster of ideas that attend to ancient racial frameworks. As in the time before history, so at the end of history, distinctive racial identities are dissolved; ethnicity is an ephemeral and localized aberration of the history of the physical world. Harnack's whisper, not fully exorcised, can still be heard in spite of Buell's assertions that this sort of universalism must be read ethnically." The whole thing becomes really sinister and border upon pathology in some Gnostic texts, especially the Gospel of Philip, in which the ability of changing one's genos through ritual is highlighted. Some Gnostics were really ahead of their times, so ahead that, even in 2006, even the most illusionned shûdra of the most hysterically anti-racist lobbies haven't gone so far as to mention this "ability", at least publicly and officially.

With respect to Ginzberg's 'Legends of the Bible', Jews, as is well known, curse a lot, it is interesting and not surprising that Jews curse people mainly on sexual grounds.

Evola once pointed out in his writings about so-called 'neo-paganism' that most of the forms of 'paganism' practised by modern European 'pagans' have actually never existed in antiquity, and, to a certain extent, he was right, to the extent that the Roman religio is no longer practised, except, maybe, in a few families which still worship the family gods worshiped by their ancestors, and that Nordic heathenism, except in small circles, is the shadow of what it used to be, whereas what has been re-emerging is matriarchal paganism. In the same way, Christians are 're-discovering' a Christianity which is a pure figment of their fertile imagination and only exists in their mind.
Evola As He Is
Administrator
*****

Evola As He Is Avatar

Posts: 165Male

Oct 27, 2019 at 1:31pm
Post Options
Post by Evola As He Is on Oct 27, 2019 at 1:31pm
You can't explain yourself, and one cannot hold a grudge on you for not being able to do so : trying to explain that "premodern Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is not hostile to Western civilization or aristocratic and racial values" and that "premodern Catholic-Orthodox Christianity is not hostile to Western civilization or aristocratic and racial values" is like trying to explain that fluids are not fluid but solid and solids are not solid but fluid. The only world in which you could justify your thesis is in the romantic poets'. In the meantime, you are only fooling yourself.

Your thesis is based on various confusions, confusions of planes. Origen, Ephraim, Ambrose, Jerome and Ennodius, etc., all represent the doctrinal mainstream of the Church, as far as their theological work is concerned, but, when it comes to race, their views on the Negro have not influenced in any way the teaching of the Church on these matters, and it is this teaching which has been shaping, or rather distorting, the brain of the Whites for two millennia. Not Origen's, Ephraim's, Jerome's, etc, personal views on the Negro. It is important to distinguish the official line of a given organisation, according to which it acts positively in history by more or less subterranean ways, and the private opinions of its representatives, which, in certain cases, may wander from this line, but in no case influence it and prevent it from being implemented. A second case of confusion, closely linked with the latter and tinged with exaggeration, appears when you tell us that Origin developed a 'racialist' teaching : authors of the twentieth century such as de Gobineau, Clauss, Günther, Evola, have all made considerations both on race and on religion. Why is it that they are considered objectively as racialist theoreticians and not as theologians? For the simple reason that they all have formulated a racial theory and that, on the other hand, what they have written about religion does not suffice to make them theologians. Our point, here, is that it is, to say the least, exaggerated to dare to call "racialist teachings" the personal views of a theologian like Origen on the Negro, especially when, in the whole of his work, it's are a drop in the ocean, overwhelmed by far more developed considerations of the theological order which are in stark contradiction with them (while we are at it, Origen's comments on the Egyptians of his time sound like the comments which could be made by a Jewish educated tourist or an even more educated Chinese tourist visiting Rome, Berlin or Paris in one hundred year, capitals in which traces of a degeneration due to race mixing can be seen on almost every 'face', whether in the Jewish 'beaux quartiers', in the 'white ghettoes' or in the 'black suburbs' : "For the Italian/Germans/ French are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham (...)". Origen was manifestly not aware that early Egyptians were Whites, and, likewise, that over-educated Chinese tourist will not be aware that early Italians/Germans/French were Whites. Speaking of white, there were times when it didn't have to be "idealized")

You don't realise how right you are to refer to the saying "Diabolus Deus inversus" in this connection. We have already quoted a few excerpts of this fundamental writing by Evola which 'La storia segreta della sovversione' is. Your assumption that "The Pauline-Christian equality of souls before God, along with the ultimate irrelevance of nationality and gender, is an exclusively METAPHYSICAL affirmation" gives us the opportunity to quote another excerpt from it, which concerns one of the various aspects of the process of inversion to which we referred in our previous message : "All there is to do is to desecrate these principles [those which are only valid for a minority of superior beings], to secularise them and to draw from them an ideal for just any individual, whoever he is, so as to turn these principles into subversive instruments and to come to anarchy and individualism, that is, to attitudes and errors which were precisely to result in the denial and in the destruction of the spiritual plane, the only one on which these principles can be valid and legitimate". Evola takes an example : "On the plane of nature, equality is nonsense : in nature, there is nothing 'equal'. On a higher plane, it must be spoken not so much about 'equality' as of 'parity'. But, once again, originally, what we find are values of an essentially aristocratic type. It is only among 'free men' and 'noble men' that 'parity' had a legitimate and manly value, beyond any difference of nature (...). By democratising and by inverting this idea, we have on the contrary the egalitarian 'immortal principles' as instrument of worldwide subversion". Roman aristocrats were and felt peers before Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus : did they go and tell the populace : "we are all equal before Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus?" Did Celsius and Roman philosophers go and add : "We are all METAPHYSICALLY equal before Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus'? Early Christians did go and tell the 'good news' to the populace, to butchers, to slaves, to Negroes, to females. Sadly, you were not there to tell these : 'Hey, guys, it's only to be understood from a METAPHYSICAL standpoint though". Assuming that all beings are equal before a God or gods metaphysically, the fact is that, if you tell people who don't and can't have a clue what metaphysics is, whatever you say from this metaphysical standpoint, they are going to take it for granted, litterally, and, in this respect, the influence of Paul's notorious anti-racist statement on the formation and on the development of gynaeco-democracy in the West is unanimously acknowledged. In this respect, early Christianity, as rightly pointed out by Evola, acted as a true ferment of decomposition in the Roman civilisation. Its representatives, whether consciously or not, desecrated principles which are only valid for a minority of superior beings, secularised these principles and drew from them an ideal for just any individual, whether Jew or Greek, whether male or female. In other words, early Christians delivered initiatory and secret teachings to individuals, to masses, which, by nature, were not prepared to receive them. This is pure desecration – due to a confusion of planes, to illegitimate applications, on a lower plane, of principles which are only valid and positive on a higher plane.

"Nowhere in the New Testament is material social revolution advocated". Likewise, nowhere in Lenin's work is the fact that Bolshevism is a Jewish creature mentioned.

Have you heard of what Léon de Poncins and Evola called the 'occult war’?
Evola As He Is
Administrator
*****

Evola As He Is Avatar

Posts: 165Male

Oct 27, 2019 at 1:33pm
Post Options
Post by Evola As He Is on Oct 27, 2019 at 1:33pm
First, this not a discussion. There cannot be any discussion with someone who doesn't take in consideration the arguments of his interlocutor and develops his views as if these arguments hadn't been brought up and actually didn't exist. Second, this is not about Catholicism against Heathenism, but Christianity against genotheism, or rather, to be more precise, Christianity as a Semitic religious form against Aryan genotheism : this is the frame, which, if you read again 'Negritude', you find is even more restricted : to the question of the attitude of Roman genotheism towards race and the attitude of Christianity towards race. As far as your considerations are concerned, they are much vaster and deal with other aspects of the dualism between Christianity and heathenism, which, for some of them, have already been tackled here

Third, there is a Christian spirit just as there is an Aryan genotheist spirit, so that, since we have been considering both and, beyond this, their respective intimate core, it is precisely from the spiritual point of view that we have been looking at things. In its pure state, beyond its alterations and its denaturations throughout history, what is the intrinsic attitude of a genotheist cult such as Roman religion towards race ; what is that of Christianity towards it? This is, we repeat, the problem at stake here. Their respective attitude towards it derives naturally from their respective spirit, the former, to cut a long story short, solar, the latter lunar. In the former, religion is closely linked with and cannot even be conceived of outside the racial frame : it is so true that, when Rome decayed to the point of incorporating in it alien elements or decayed because alien elements infiltrated it and undermined its roots, alien could still not convert to it, whereas, right from the start, Christianity, by its inner nature, was a religion open to anyone, irrespective of race and sex, and, therefore, proselyte and based on conversion. This is precisely why the former should be called genotheism, that is, a religion based on a racial factor, and the latter, for instance, pathotheism, when the terms 'monotheism' and 'polytheism', coined, by the way, by Christian apologetics, in whose interest it was to hide its 'polytheist' origins, only cloud the issue.

The presence of lunar elements in the Christian teaching, elements which are clearly closely linked with matriarchal cults and which can be brought back to the human substance of the early Christians, is too obvious for us to emphasise. As for the question of the 'solar elements' which can be found in it, and which, as you recall, were noted by Evola, it is often misunderstood, and, as far as Evola is concerned, this misunderstanding is partly due to the way he expressed himself on this matter. He didn't make himself clear enough, as clear as he made himself in his writings about the 'phenomenology of subversion', in which he made this absolutely fundamental point, worth of a truly differentiated spirit : the presence of an element in a structure, in a whole, does not mean anything in itself ; what is meaningful, what must be considered, on the other hand, is its function in this whole. This is not an observation of genius, this is the natural power of discrimination of a truly organic thought, which is at work again in his comments on the saying 'Diabolus deus inversus'.

To make ourselves perfectly clear, let's apply this principle of analysis to a most concrete plane : the presence of moss in the engine of an old car which is not maintained by its owner does not make this motor a garden, does it? In a garden, moss is expected to be found and contributes to the organic development of this environment. Found in an engine, its 'meaning' and its 'function' are far from being as positive.

The presence of 'solar elements' in Christianity thus does not mean anything in itself and the study of their function in the whole of the Christian teaching could actually reveal particularly sinister aspects of this teaching. Contrary to what Guénon often seemed to assume, inversion of symbols have not started in the modern times.

When Evola says that "There is the possibility of its contributing to a future spiritual reconstruction to the susceptibility, from the solar elements present in it, to integrate itself into the vaster order of the primordial, solar traditional. And in this order, without doubt, there can be ensured an essential convergence of the positive element of Christianity with that of the great, virile, Olympian elements possessed both by the authentic Romanity and the greatest forms of the common Indo-European and Aryan civilisations", he is not drawing any practical consequences at all - in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', he clearly stated that the question of the 'cohabitation' of 'paganism' and of Christianity appeared insoluble to him on the practical plane in the 1940's ; he is only referring to a "possibility" on the plane of principles. Now, the practical consequences to be drawn from these optimistic views, provided that and only provided that an Aryan order is restored, are the following ones, and, as we have already mentioned it, we don't understand how Evola didn't draw them himself, as they are obvious : Christianity, whether in its orthodox, in its protestant or in its catholic flavour, could remain, cleansed of all its Semitic elements (but, then, what would be left of it?), as the religion of the people, of those whose inner nature, limited as it is by lunar and more or less aphrodisian tendencies, prevents them from being able to recognise directly the solar elements in the religion of their ancestors and are only able to feel more or less vaguely "the remnants of solarity in what is close in time and in place". As for the élite, it goes without saying that it lives according to the 'mos maiorum' ; otherwise, it is not an élite, but, at best, a semblance of élite. Roman civilisation decayed and fell because its élite lost communication with its gods, that is, with the higher forces in which, on a non material plane, their stock originated and which acted as a formative force : an Aryan civilisation can only be reborn if communication with these forces is restored, which demands the actualisation of the potentialities of a transcendental heredity in those in which this heredity is still present. To consider an Aryan restoration in 2006 seems, to say the least, premature, as what's left of it is fighting not to disappear. At the end of the nineteenth century, it may have appeared that

Evola didn't point exactly point out that "there are no pure races". What he really pointed out is that "pure races in an absolute sense no longer exist nowadays" (p. 33).