top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Προφητεία (91)

Evola and the blood: a problem with Evola is his attitude to blood—and I think I know why it is a problem with him. In general, Evola celebrates heredity—and his approach to wisdom is correct, although he does speak about religious power moving from “those who say they know” to “those who know” and I do wonder if he ever actually saw the things I have (he doesn’t sound like it—he always sounds like a man who writes about something he hasn’t seen). Anyway, he makes solid points in general—however, I think he falls apart when it comes to race.

The reason he falls apart is that he stresses that “spiritual race” is the highest ideal and that this is not connected to “the blood” in any way. In part, he is in reaction against vulgar nationalism—nationalism itself being a leftist movement from the French Revolution—and people who say “I’m English, I’m for the English—alwright?”. Well, I don’t think you have value just because you’re English—and Evola is right to be on guard against that.

However, he contradicts himself: he talks about castes, about heredity, and so on—and then he suddenly says “blood isn’t important”. He says this even though he maintains that the castes and the aristocratic Roman lines pass on their initiation—and, I presume, that isn’t just about the traditions being passed on, it’s meant to be in the blood. Even more democratic religions, like the Christianity Evola abhors, talk about Jesus being from “the royal line of David”—so even they value heredity.

Why does he say contradictory things? Why does he assert aristocracy and at the same time say “it’s an initiation above blood”? I think it’s because Evola was one of those people you meet from time to time, often involved in radical right politics, who really likes the idea of being an aristocrat—but they aren’t. You know, it’s their “thing”, their daydream or fantasy that they’d be in a chateau all day long being superior and aesthetic—perhaps giving sagacious commands to a loyal retainer.

People like this do things like scan their family tree until they, finally, almost inevitably, find someone like “Edmund de Vere, Under Baron of Buckmaster” or some minor title—and then, not very subtly, will drop this fact to people (although, modestly insisting that, of course, though they are technically heir to the title, they never use it). The result being everyone in their general social circle refers to them as “the Under Baron”. Other people who comb the family tree and find nothing are forced to “get it out of a Christmas cracker” or order it over the Internet—much as some people “buy” title deeds to plots on the Moon.

The thing to realise about Evola was that he was basically “that” guy—you know, the guy who has always fancied that he is *really* a marquis or a baron and that, through some mix-up, he has not inherited his rightful domain but has, instead, ended up working in a post office. However, he knows all about what a *proper* aristocrat should be—he’s researched it very well, so well that he knows that most people with real titles are not the *genuine article*, something Evola himself liked to say (modern aristocrats being dab hands with the “cocktail shaker and tennis racquet” but not “the Olympian solar initiation”).

So Evola’s parents were a telegraphic engineer (father) and a “landowner” (mother)—though his grandparents were shopkeepers and joiners, so “landowner” doesn’t mean “baroness” here. Now, it’s complicated by the fact the aristocracy in places like Sicily and Spain is not like the English aristocracy—you can get people called Don José de Cabellero y Gassett de Ortega de Lopez and all they own, as “gentry”, is some decaying house complete with two bonded peasants. In short, there are surplus “aristocrats” floating about those places.

So perhaps Evola was titled in that sense—but there’s no evidence he was a “Baron”, as he was sometimes referred to (perhaps as a joke at his expense for his obsession with aristocracy, “the magic Baron” as they said—just sounds like a nickname to me).

So why was it so important for Evola that aristocracy should not be “by blood alone” but mainly be about “initiation”? Pretty simple—he wasn’t an aristocrat by birth. Hence, to fulfil his aristocratic aspirations, he had to make it so aristocracy is initiatory and not about heredity—then he too could become an aristocrat or, as he put it (conveniently), “an aristocrat of the soul”.

The result is that he’s contradictory—because everywhere else he mentions how heredity is important and then he swerves and basically says “it’s an initiation”. And that means anyone can do it—and it makes no sense from a magical perspective, because blood is the most powerful agent of magical actualisation (think about the blood in the Holy Grail). For sure, this is blood in its qualitative aspect—not a DNA test—but it’s still blood in the hereditary sense (blue blood).

The result is that you get all sorts of people who claim to be Evolians—from Mexicans to Jews. It’s a very “democratic” elitism that Evola founded, since it’s all “spiritual”—which, given he doesn’t lay down a formal initiation himself, amounts to “an attitude”. Now, he’s not as bad as some nutcase who goes round calling himself the Marquis Charles d’Arby Smith-Massingbird (“Of the Lancaster cadet branch of the Massingbirds, doncha know?). But he’s quite close to that.

I have to say it’s never been my fantasy that I’m the unknown prince to a royal family, so misplaced at birth—or the heir to the baronetcy of Cheshire. I have daydreams, but these aren’t my daydreams—to be “an aristocrat”, to be “in the club”. But it’s a common fantasy, one that Evola indulged in I think—and it’s why he fatally underestimates blood and heredity.


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page