While Weaver loved the South with a fierce passion, he avoided one of the besetting sins of the heirs of the Agrarians: a constricting sectionalism that thrives on the belief that all would have been well south of the Potomac had the Confederacy bested the Union Armies. Weaver perceived that the infirmities of modern Western civilization transcended the dichotomy between North and South.George M. Curtis & James J. Thompson, Jr [i].
Who is Julius Evola? His career was many-sided: As a philosopher he belongs among the leading representatives of Italian Idealism … to some he might appear as an èminence grise in politics, for Mussolini apparently wanted to implement some of Evola’s ideas to create more freedom from the restrictions of National Socialism … and many of his books testify to his understanding of alchemy and magic, and it is reported that Mussolini stood in considerable awe of Evola’s ‘magical powers.’”H.T. Hansen [ii]
When a thinker says civilization has taken the wrong road, when he says civilization is in the process of disintegrating, when his political sympathies lie with a defeated power that tried to establish a different pattern of civilization, then that thinker is a pariah. He stands outside the circle of “received wisdom.” What, then, can we learn from him? Being an outsider, he sometimes sees what the rest of us have missed. Some of his views may be repellant, or outrageous, yet he should not be ignored; for those who find themselves standing outside a civilization are not entangled in the conceits of that civilization, or engaged in the deceptive flattery that feeds it. The thinker who stands outside civilization, who suffers intellectual exile, may be civilization’s only honest critic. He may, in fact, be honest and courageous enough to pour cold water over our heads and cry “shame.” Why, indeed, would he do such a thing? There is never any money is such a career. Everyone and everything, in fact, is moving further and further from him. Whatever his failings or missteps, he has his little corner of truth. Wariness is advised in approaching him, of course. One should never approach pariahs uncritically. One approaches them to learn truths that we have exiled. One approaches them with one burning question: What have we failed to see?
Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (1898-1974) was a pagan and enemy of the Catholic Church who eventually admitted that the Church might provide the only solution for Europe’s dying civilization. Richard Malcolm Weaver, Jr., (1910-1963) was a Professor at Chicago University, a Protestant and Southern “Agrarian” in search of philosophical answers to intractable problems. Evola has been linked to Italian Fascism while Weaver has been linked to the Confederate States of America. Evola was a philosopher and alchemist while Weaver was a teacher of rhetoric who upheld “truth, beauty and goodness” against “the fateful doctrine of nominalism.” Evola wrote of the link between mystical experience and tradition. Weaver wrote what he called “an intuition of a situation.” Whatever their differences in temperament or approach, they both believed in hierarchy. They both detested modernity’s materialism. They both railed against feminism, egalitarianism, rationalism and the intellectual slovenliness of the bourgeoisie. They both detested soulless statistics and mass politics, the feminization of men, the collapse of chivalry and aristocracy. And, finally, both writers believed that modernity would come to a bad end in the not-too-distant future.
These two thinkers were bellwethers. What is remarkable is that two writers, from very different backgrounds, arrived at remarkably similar conclusions about civilization’s ongoing disintegration. They both saw the failings of Western liberalism. They both foresaw Bolshevism’s destructive role. They both said that Western civilization had lost its center. Furthermore, their anti-liberalism was equivocal insofar as they both valued freedom. Evola was never a member of the National Fascist Party and Weaver never defended the South’s “peculiar institution” (i.e., slavery). Yet they were sympathizers of a kind, quite critical, yet sympathetic to lost causes that were anti-liberal. Weaver wrote a chapter in his book, Visions of Order, with the title “Forms and Social Cruelty.” Every age, he said, is based on “forms” which can lead to an “idolatry” that rapidly devolves into the destruction of innocent lives. Liberalism, he warned, also has its idolatries. “By the full reach of this reasoning the modern world through its machine culture has fallen into an idolatry no less grave than that of past ages which we are accustomed to censure,” Weaver noted.[iii] Both Weaver and Evola attempted to show that liberal civilization is potentially as brutal as any other. Weaver and Evola both pointed to the phenomenon of “total war” as practiced by the West. They had no illusions about peace and prosperity, progress and science. They were economic pessimists, technological pessimists, political and military pessimists. “A third world war in its social repercussions will eventually determine the triumph of the Fourth Estate,” wrote Evola;[iv] “Western people are destined not for the happiness which they have promised themselves, but for something like [Charles] Péguy’s ‘socialist poverty,’” wrote Weaver.[v] When told that modernity had the choice of using nuclear energy for peace, Evola wrote, “In an epoch of dissolution, such an idea seems completely abstract and fantastic, typical of intellectuals with no sense of reality.”[vi]
As outsiders, Evola and Weaver saw that the West was in trouble. They saw that the enemies of the West – the communists – were intellectually serious people. The materialism of the communists did not blunt communism’s readiness to work with ideas. Given this as their point of departure, Weaver and Evola had a deeper understanding of communism than other thinkers. Ideas have always ruled mankind. The communists were the people who, in modern times, were the most serious about ideas. The West, on its side, has proven to be erratic when it comes to ideas: sloppy, half-baked and shiftless. Because Evola was a European, and because he predicted Russia’s future course of action, his writings worried Moscow more than Weaver’s. It is not surprising, therefore, that the agents of the post-Soviet continuation regime took special notice of those who fell under Evola’s spell after 1991. As it happens, interest in Evola’s work has been growing in Europe. What would be more disastrous for Russia than Europe rallying under a new set of ideas? (However bizarre those ideas might be.)
Bannon, the European Right, and Moscow
In America, meanwhile, the old conservatism, with its virtues and its faults, has been sidelined by Trump’s populism. Few in America have taken notice of the implications springing from Evola or Weaver’s work; though Steve Bannon, who sometimes hangs out with the European right, commented on Evola in 2017. Bannon spoke of President Vladimir Putin’s “advisor [Aleksandr Dugin] who hearkens back to Julius Evola … who are really supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which … metastasized into Italian Fascism.” According to Bannon, the traditionalists “believe at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in the form of nationalism.” Bannon then credited Putin with being a capitalist in charge of a “kleptocracy.” Bannon said he wasn’t justifying Putin; but “I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing.”[vii]
Here we find Bannon, the leading “intellectual” of the Trump cadre, taking notice of Evola; but only because the Russians noticed Evola first. Bannon might be surprised to learn that Evola did not believe in the kind of nationalism Bannon embraces. Bannon would also be surprised to learn that Evola was not really a Fascist and did not believe in popular sovereignty as Americans do. Evola was a monarchist who believed sovereignty comes by the Grace of God through a properly “consecrated king.” Evola explained that such a king was needed more than ever, “especially in Europe in these latter times because of the involutive processes that have led both to the organization of the modern world and to the advent of Christianity….”[viii] Before and during World War II, Evola had gone along with Italian Fascism insofar as it bowed to the King of Italy. Evola was never comfortable with the Italian Social Republic of 1943-45. (For those unfamiliar with the politics of the time, Mussolini was overthrown by the Fascist Grand Council in July 1943. The Grand Council asked the King of Italy to resume his full constitutional powers, dismiss Mussolini and negotiate peace with the Allies. The Germans quickly occupied Italy to forestall this surrender. Evola was one of a handful of influential Italians who went to Hitler’s headquarters to discuss the formation of a new Italian regime. Evola argued for a monarchy under which Mussolini would serve as regent; but Hitler brushed aside these suggestions, opting to set up the Italian Social Republic instead.)[ix]
It is difficult for a distracted American like Bannon, however well-read or astute, to come to grips with Evola’s esoteric monarchism. (I cannot come to grips with it either.) It is also difficult for those who never understood communism, or the post-Soviet regime in Moscow, to realize that Evola’s monarchist views could never have a place in Putin’s regime, or with Putin’s advisors. Aleksandr Dugin is an ideological trickster and an agent of influence – not a monarchist. He may titillate Bannon, but he is no intellectual plaything. We can no more take seriously Dugin’s ideologies of misdirection than we can believe the statements of “President” Joe Biden. The post-Soviet regime under Putin is still Soviet, run by secret structures of the old Communist Party Soviet Union.[x] At the same time, the post-constitutional American regime is moving toward Sovietism, owing to secret structures of the communists and their fellow-travelers in big business, the media, and government. From one end of the world to the other, it is all of a piece.[xi]
The Americans, of course, are slow to grasp the situation and the Russians would like to keep it that way. Evola, therefore, is made to appear as an intellectual forefather of Putin’s advisor, Aleksandr Dugin. This comedy of intellectual errors, so pervasive on the American side, suggests that the center of intellectual gravity may not be in America at this point. Could Europe actually regain its sense of self through America’s intellectual abdication? Perfectly aware that Europe is trying to reawaken, Moscow has been sending one agent after another to infiltrate the European right. To properly frame Moscow’s interest in European nationalism and traditionalism, it is worth noting that the exploitation of right-wing nationalism in Europe is an old Soviet strategy, at least going back to the Hitler-Stalin partnership of August 1939. Years after that partnership ended, when Hitler’s Reich fell in May 1945, the Soviet special services controlled a significant part of the Nazi diaspora which was moving gold and elite personnel to South America. It is a long and complicated story with many missing pieces. Suffice it to say that the GRU and NKVD had successfully turned many Nazi officials into agents of Stalin, particularly after the German defeat at Stalingrad. Nazi bureaucrats with keen survival instincts understood that Germany had lost the war at Stalingrad and made their peace with Stalin on the side. Therefore, Moscow’s special services have been in the business of recruiting Nazis, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites for more than seventy years, and has been manipulating the post-war Nazi underground ever since.[xii]
Of course, maintaining control of underground Nazi and Fascist groups would never be easy (even for the KGB). In the 1950s there developed an ideological struggle between those European rightists who preferred Soviet Russia and those who preferred America. (Evola was in neither camp.) The Russian strategists calculated that a resurgent Nazism, or anti-Semitism, could prove useful during a future European crisis. Yet the most serious, prescient writer to emerge from the Axis side of the war, was Julius Evola, a man who never belonged to the KGB and was not under their control. In fact, as noted earlier, Evola never belonged to Mussolini. As a prescient thinker, Evola represented a threat in his own right. Evola understood communism and anticipated what would take place in 1989-91. The question then became, “How could Moscow appropriate Evola for themselves and thereby cover their tracks?” His association with Mussolini’s regime therefore made Evola exploitable. One merely needed to emphasize the “more useful” aspects (from Moscow’s standpoint) of Evola’s work. Thus, Evola could be rolled up into a larger red-brown project. Having died in 1974 he could not defend his work or its context. His precognitions might well be hijacked by KGB esotericists like Dugin. Evola, of course, was not the only target of this kind of game. The GRU and KGB have always sought to recruit right-wing intellectuals; especially those with psychological abnormalities, like America’s leading Nazi “theorist” – Francis Parker Yockey, author of Imperium. Not surprisingly, Yockey was a writer Evola came to criticize. Yet their writings share a few items useful to Russian projects; especially because Yockey and Evola were both interested in Aryanism, Helena Blavatsky’s notions of “root races,” and the Hindu Kali-Yuga (or Dark Age) which was expected to bring great destruction to mankind. Hitler’s geopolitical theories were also tied into these Luciferian items by way of the Thule Society. Keenly aware of these undercurrents, Aleksandr Dugin did Putin a favor by dangling a baited Eurasianist hook for the unwary to nibble on.
In Kevin Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Post-Fascist International, we find that Yockey was a Eurasianist more than half a century before the emergence of Aleksandr Dugin (who was, according to his biographer, a creature of Moscow’s special services). Evidence suggests that Yockey had come into contact with agents of the communist bloc, had disappeared into East Germany, had become enmeshed with Soviet intelligence. The leader of American Nazism in the 1960s, George Lincoln Rockwell, later characterized Yockey as a “Strasserist” (or red Nazi). It is no accident, in this context, that Dugin had a hand in forming Russia’s National Bolshevik Party in 1993, since right-wing Bolshevism was to become his special area of expertise. Here we see how the Russian work of infiltration and manipulation is prepared by talented individuals over many years (through various projects). If we examine these ideological and clandestine strands, we begin to see Moscow’s handiwork peeking out from beneath the surface. According to Coogan, one of Yockey’s closest friends in Weisbaden, Germany, was “a highly decorated ex-Luftwaffe man named Martin Becker.” According to intelligence sources, Becker was “allegedly in contact with the STRASSER group,” frequently traveling to East Germany and meeting with the Russians. Coogan wrote, “All that is known for sure is that Yockey began publicly arguing that Russia was the lesser of two evils in London sometime in 1948. Later, Yockey began asserting that Soviet Russia has not been run by Jews since 1937-38. This is as close to an endorsement of the USSR as any Nazi is likely to give. From 1955-57 Yockey disappeared from his usual haunts. Evidence emerged in 1956 that Yockey was working in East Germany. At least one well-informed source, wrote Coogan, “believed that Yockey had a close Russian connection.”[xiii]
The reason for going into such detail, is to establish that the Nazi/Moscow connection is no fantasy. Moscow constantly strives to consolidate its hold on the radical right. It is a very real part of a long-term game. Dugin has been a primary agent of influence in this game. Posing as a “philosopher,” Dugin has attempted to play off of Evola’s esoteric traditionalism, submerging Evola in a Russian-made traditionalist narrative. To show Dugin’s insincerity, Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland have written a piece, “Neo-Eurasianism and Perennial Philosophy,” in which they quote Dugan as saying, “Frankly, I hate traditionalists – no matter whether they are of domestic or Western origin. They are rabble. Good people do real work or wage wars, even if they have little chance of success.”[xiv]
Dugin’s books and presentations are all part of a grand deception. It is the same deception that portrays Putin as a defender of Western values and Christianity. This coordinated strategy has fooled many conservatives in the West. It is an offshoot of a larger strategy that was first engaged by Gorbachev in 1987-91, and afterwards by Yeltsin. In his book, Revolt Against the Modern World, Evola described this kind of strategy as basic to communist behavior. There are two truths in communism, he warned. “The first ‘esoteric’ truth has a dogmatic and immutable character; it corresponds to the basic tenets of the revolution and is formulated in the writings and in the directives of the early Bolshevik period.” Thus, the thoughts of Marx and Lenin will always remain relevant, and will always operate. The second truth of communism is what Evola called a “realistic truth … which is forged case by case, often in apparent contrast with the first truth, and characterized by eventual compromises with the ideas of the ‘bourgeois’ world….” In other words, Bolshevism is ready to change its outward appearance and adopt democracy, or capitalism, or even to feign Christianity (as Putin has done). Evola therefore predicted that the Soviet Union would pretend to evolve toward a normal state. It would adopt private property. It would take up “the Slavic myth.” Yet, warned Evola, “The varieties of this second truth [of flexible pretense] are usually set aside as soon as they have achieved their tactical objective; they are mere instruments at the service of the first truth [hardline communism]. Therefore, those who would fall into this trap and believe that Bolshevism is a thing of the past, that it has evolved and that it is going to take on normal forms of government and international relations, are indeed extremely naïve.”[xv]
Through all this, Evola characterized Lenin as a careful calculator – a “mathematician dealing with a complex calculus problem … analyzing in a detached and lucid way….”[xvi] The masses are not necessary in this project, wrote Evola. The primary strategic method was “a technique requiring the employment of specialized and well-directed teams.” Moscow’s strategy, wrote Evola, partakes of a “ruthless ideological coherence.” The Bolsheviks were “absolutely indifferent to the practical consequences and the countless calamities that derived from the application of abstract principles; to them ‘man’ as such did not exist.” According to Evola, the Bolshevik strategist couples “the fierce concentration typical of a fanatic with the exact logic, method, and focus on the most effective means typical of a technician.” Evola described communism as “foreshadowing an era in which the forces of darkness will no longer work behind the scenes but come out into the open, having found their most suitable incarnation in beings in whom demonism teams up with a lucid intellect … and a strong will to power.” Evola thought that the resulting catastrophes would bring about “the end of the cycle”; that is, the end of civilization itself.
Of equal interest, Evola understood that Marxism-Leninism is not primarily (and never was) an economic doctrine. “The primary element,” he noted, “is the disavowal of every spiritual and transcendent value; the philosophy and the sociology of historical materialism are just expressions of this disavowal and derive from it, not the other way around, and the corresponding communist praxis is but one of the many methods employed to carry it out.” It is therefore a doctrine which “disintegrates” the individual into the collective, negating the soul (which is of the individual). “In the communist world an important goal is the elimination in man of everything that has the value of autonomous personality and of all that may represent an interest unrelated to the needs of the collectivity. More specifically, [communism signifies] the mechanization, disintellectualization, and rationalization of every activity, on every plane….”[xvii]
Richard Weaver’s Insights
Richard Weaver described the communists as “an elite group of remorseless theorists who pride themselves on their freedom from sentimentality.”[xviii] Like Evola, Weaver saw communists as clear and logical. He wrote, “Nothing is more disturbing to modern men of the West than the logical clarity with which the Communists face all problems. Who shall say that this feeling is not born of a deep apprehension that here are the first true realists in hundreds of years and that no dodging about in the excluded middle will save Western liberalism?” Weaver further explained, “Hating this world they never made … the modern Communists – revolutionaries and logicians – move toward intellectual rigor.”
At the same time, Weaver saw the West’s intellectual incapacity. It is a case, he said, of “spoiled child psychology.” Weaver asked “whether the West will allow comfort to soften it to the point at which defeat is assured or whether it will accept the rule of hardness and discover means of discipline.”[xix] Weaver added that, “The Russians with habitual clarity of purpose have made their choice; there is to be discipline, and it is to be enforced by the elite controlling the state.”[xx] Discipline, after all, is necessary to victory. No discipline, no victory. But discipline, along with a belief in authority, has broken down in the West. What, then, if a real conflict occurs? “The failure of discipline in empirical societies can be traced to warfare between the productive and the consumptive faculties,” wrote Weaver. “The spoiled child is simply one who has been allowed to believe that his consumptive faculty can prescribe the order of society.”[xxi]
In the war between East and West, said Weaver, the liberal West is at a disadvantage: “For, however much the Bolsheviks have bemused themselves with other sophistries, they have never lost sight of the fact that life is a struggle. And, since they see expansion as the price of survival, they are wholly committed to dynamism.”[xxii] Thus, the “blue heaven” of the Western liberals [and conservatives] is precarious indeed. What are inalienable rights next to the strategic dynamism of the communists? Western liberalism, warned Weaver, is fundamentally incapable of thinking. “Even if we assume pacific intentions on both sides, the future would not be safe for Western liberalism. Its fundamental incapacity to think, arising from an inability to see contradictions, deprives it of the power to propagate.”[xxiii]
Weaver also warned that the West cannot compete with socialist poverty. The West thinks that money is power, that money and wealth are security; but no, says Weaver. Money and wealth are enervating. Consider the following footnote from ancient history: Greece was poor when Persia was rich, yet Greece defeated Persia. Sparta was poor while Athens was rich, yet Sparta defeated Athens. Rome was without a navy and relatively poor compared to the commercial prowess of Carthage, yet Rome defeated Carthage. When Rome was rotted by wealth, the Germanic barbarians defeated Rome. The idea that wealth always prevails in war, is a liberal capitalist conceit.
It is also a conservative conceit. One of the problems we have, on the American right, is the bizarre notion that Ronald Reagan “won the Cold War.” One might ask, facetiously, how he did that? By appointing Gorbachev as General Secretary of the Communist Party Soviet Union? No. By invading tiny Grenada? No. By building a strategic missile defense (SDI) system? No, since none was built. Did Reagan win by supplying the Muslim fighters in Afghanistan with weapons? No. And look at who is supplying the Muslim fighters now! The future is not safe for Western liberalism, said Weaver. The West has lost its ability to think. “Demagogic leaders have told the common man that he is entitled to much more than he is getting; they have not told him the more unpleasant truth that, unless there is to be expropriation – the increase must come out of greater productivity.” And so, the West turned to cheap Chinese labor. This was the great trick by which more could be produced with less. Only it caused the industrial base of America and much of Europe to be moved to China.
What would Weaver say now if he could read the Putin-friendly commentaries of Patrick Buchanan, Thomas Fleming or Paul Gottfried? What would Weaver have said, had he lived to see Nixon’s trip to communist China? Would he have believed the communist lies, as they did? Would he have accepted the fall of the Soviet Union as spontaneous and genuine? Would he really have cheered Putin like so many of today’s paleoconservatives?
I do not think so.
To read Weaver and Evola, one must accept a little discomfort. Naturally, I have no sympathy for the Confederate States of America or Mussolini’s Italy. I quote Weaver and Evola for their brilliant insights. As it turns out, insights are the thing – regardless of who has them. What we need to do, at this time, is to understand communism. We need to find insights about communism wherever we can. That also means we ought to be reading Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
Communism is taking over the world, though nobody wants to see it. A biological war began last year, initiated by the Chinese communists. As this biological war unfolds, we still remain incapable of naming our enemy, or recognizing a pattern of totalitarian encroachment from government. Is there a strategy at work here? Always, with us, the communist dupe is mistaken for the communist mastermind. The Western billionaire gets all the credit, as if competence is measured by money alone. We forget that the billionaire is not a state; he is not a bureaucracy full of intelligence agencies and think tanks. He is one person with a fat bank account. Therefore, we are overrun with conspiracy theories that add to the public’s confusion. We lack understanding at the philosophical level, and we lack historical understanding. Being lazy, then, we are ready to oversimply – to judge everything by a cliché. “Oh yes,” we say to ourselves. “The whole thing is about money.” We thus misunderstand China. We misunderstand Vladimir Putin who has intentionally cultivated a deceptive image for conservatives to swallow. He is, as Bannon said, a “kleptocrat.” Case closed.
I believe Evola and Weaver understood communism. Evola had a very special understanding. He underscored communism’s professionalism. He was exactly right when he said the communists will pretend to compromise and surrender their ideology. But then, he warned, they will return to their first principles once this compromise has achieved its purposes. Given the quality of their discernment, I do not think Weaver or Evola would have mistaken Putin for a conservative nationalist. Both would have seen through the cynicism of Putin’s Christian pose. They would have pointed to Putin’s statement that communism is like Christianity even as Lenin was cast in the likeness of a Christian saint.[xxiv]
Weaver wrote, “The truth is … that our surrender to irrationality has been in progress for a long time, and we witness today a breakdown of communication not only between nations and groups within nations but also between successive generations.”[xxv] We have lost our ability to think, to use words, to communicate; that is to say, we are no longer educated. Being like children, we believe what we want to believe.
Weaver ended his great book, Ideas Have Consequences, in the following way. He said that it was “the duty of those who can foresee the end of a saturnalia to make their counsel known.” He said we were all in this together, that none will survive “a sweep as deep and broad as the decline of a civilization.” He said, “If the thinkers of our time cannot catch the imagination of the world to the point of effecting some profound transformation, they must succumb with it.” It may be the case, added Weaver, “that the sins of the fathers are going to be visited upon the generations until the reality of evil is again brought home and there comes some passionate reaction.” It seems, at this late hour, to be all that remains. Weaver then concluded, “If such is the most we can hope for, something toward that revival may be prepared by acts of thought and volition in this waning day of the West.”[xxvi]
Notes and Links
[i] Richard Weaver as edited by George M Curtis and James J. Thompson, Jr., The Southern Essays of Richard Weaver (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1987), p. xviii.
[ii] Julius Evola trans. Guido Stucco, Revolt from the Modern World (Rochester Vermont: Inner Traditions International, 1995), p. x.
[iii] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time (USA: Louisiana State University Press, 1995), pp. 73-91.
[iv] Ibid, p. 344.
[v] Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 124-125.
[vi] Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for Aristocrats of the Soul (Kindle), 2279-2289.
[viii] Revolt from the Modern World, p. 67.
[ix] Gianfranco de Turris, Julius Evola: The Philosopher and Magician in War: 1943-1945 (Kindle). The biographer underscores the fact that Evola passionately rejected Nazism and Fascism because they were totalitarian. However, Evola dud collaborate with the SS on a bizarre project to track the Masonic lodges of Europe. The material from this project was captured by the Soviets at the end of the war. What did the KGB do with this information after 1945? Perhaps some readers have information I have not run across. The occult interests of Himmler are well known. The occult preoccupations of the Soviet secret police are not well known. The manipulation of occult groups has undoubtedly occurred to the Soviet secret police and to Moscow’s strategists. The collapse of Christianity being assumed by many in Europe, the occult became something of a fad along with orientalist religions. It has taken hold in the USA as well.
[x] Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception.
[xi] How to reverse this process? Evola said the solution was monarchy. Of course, this line of thinking could only take hold in Europe where the linkages between monarchy and Christianity formed the continent’s political heritage. In Europe it is no accident that monarchy began to lose traction even as Christianity lost traction. Europe’s new God is found in the sovereignty of the masses. The modern state, which pretends to serve the people, but has cunningly usurped all power for itself. The people have empowered the state; but now the state would rather govern without the people. The machinery of the state has become so power-hungry, so stupidly pragmatic, that it arrogates to itself the right to decide what is true and false; only the mechanism has rotted to its core as it pronounces wrong to be right and good evil. The question of proper authority in American and Europe has become hopelessly confused. To their credit, Evola and Weaver saw that this was happening. They knew where this was headed. Whatever lip service is given to divine sanction by Christian conservatives today, there is no living mechanism to assure any such thing. Politics has descended to the demagoguery and corruption of elections, of machine politics, and the buying of votes. And now we have a runaway machine ready to forcibly vaccine tens of millions of American school children with an experimental drug which the bureaucracy has not properly tested. Does sovereignty in America or Europe belong to the people? Not any longer. It has been usurped by unelected bureaucrats. These do not care about transcendentals – truth, beauty and goodness – that Richard Weaver wrote about.
[xii] Read, especially, the memoirs of SS General Walter Schellenberg and Louis Kilzer’s important work, Hitler’s Traitor: Martin Bormann and the Defeat of the Reich.
[xiii] Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (New York: Autonomedia, 1999), pp. 182-446.
[xv] Revolt From the Modern World, p. 346.
[xvi] C. Malaparte, La Technique du coup d-etat (Paris, 1931), p. 13.
[xvii] Ibid, pp. 346-347.
[xviii] Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 9.
[xix] Ibid, p.123.
[xx] Ibid, p. 124.
[xxv] Ibid, 164.
[xxvi] Ibid, 187.
Quarterly Subscription (voluntary)