In this polemical series I shall be explaining how I encountered Evola, why I am translating his work, what I agree with and disagree with – but also, I will be tackling this word ‘fascism’. I am tired of this mundane term, I think we all are. This will be an eclectic series, I will be breaking it into a bunch of short essays to prevent fatigue. The critique of ‘fascism’ will begin with part 3 for any who wish to skip ahead.
I do not intend to discuss myself in my writings any more than necessary. I prefer to discuss and debate my ideas, my philosophy, to spark questions about the current state of society. Unfortunately, before my next Julius Evola translation is published, I feel the need to clarify the reasoning behind why I am translating Evola. I shouldn’t feel the need to do so, but we live in an insane era full of people incapable of thinking critically, an era full of idiots. One cannot imagine why society is in such an unstable state when we have corporations pulling the strings of journalists who pour their ideas into the open mouths of a herd who cannot turn their eyes away from the TV for more than a second – a society truly enraptured by the spectacle.
The translation of Evola’s letter to Jünger generated (and still is generating) an amount of traffic that I certainly did not expect to attract. This brought much joy, but also some anxiety. The name Julius Evola brings with it a lot of assumptions, I know from first hand experience that if one is to reference Evola in tutorials and seminars it causes unexpected side-effects: the lecture stumbles their words, their brow begins to sweat, sometimes even have slight convulsions follow. If they ask, “why are you referencing a fascist?” and you reply “Evola was never a member of the fascist party, he fled Italy to escape the fascists – if anything, Evola was more of an antifascist than the deluded naïve children that march under that very title.” – a malfunction occurs. Why? Because in academia these individuals never engage directly with resources, their understanding of people like Evola comes from fallacious misrepresentations by ‘academics’ (hackademics) like Roger Griffin.
So, if I must ‘explain’ myself to pre-emptively unleash a barrage of missiles (words) onto an immobile target which may or may not be holding ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – rumours, lies and other fallacious fallacies (journalists with rampant imaginations, no desire to follow the code of ethics they are apparently beholden to and billionaire backing), I may as well do it Nietzschean.
Why am I so wise?
I entered university as a mature age student through a six-month program with the intention to study physics. What degree you can enrol in depended upon a score you were given at the end, I achieved a score well above the required grade to study physics, though my interest had shifted. One of the teachers for the course was a philosopher who implemented philosophy into the program, I was particularly captivated by Plato’s allegory of the cave from The Republic and Kant’s categorical imperative.
Why would someone choose to study philosophy over physics in our day and age? Philosophy is looked down upon, mocked by “scientists” who naively believe that understanding the material world suffices – “if it isn’t empirical it doesn’t count”, is the peak of gullibility. When the world is becoming increasingly unstable; when people have to numb their minds with pills and television screens to endure their miserable lives; when the ecosystem is becoming chaotic; when dangerous ideologies are running rampant in close proximity – what forms an atom, what habitable planets lay out in space thousands of years away is completely pointless, it amounts to f’ all.
What we need is philosophers, Western society was built on philosophy – all these pathetic, glorified air headed children who attack philosophy would not be developing ‘theories’ that will only be proven wrong in time if it was not for philosophy. What we need are new political systems, social systems, grand visions on how we can restabilise the world and structure it to avoid the convergence of catastrophes.
We need philosophers who can ‘defrag’ Western society, clear the clutter out of the modern Western mind and change their perception. We are driven by nothing but hedonism and the desire for instant gratification. Everyone is for themselves, all they care about is their bank account – ‘Fellow citizens? Why should I care, I just want a brief moment of happiness followed by a soul crushing realisation that buying a second, third or fourth home will never bring me any true joy.’
Upon entering university, I was clouded by this same stupidity: I wanted wealth, an unlimited supply of fine whisky and wine, multiple houses around the world, open borders, I was gripped by nihilistic Left-wing ideology. This is not to say that I am one of those simple headed idiots who claims, ‘I am Right/Left-wing’ and thus only subscribe to Right/Left ideology, I scoff and laugh at people who assign themselves to this-or-that herd. Only a weak-minded fool would only expose themselves to a single train of thought. If you are Right-wing and only read or follow other Right-wingers you are no different to any of the far-Left students I encounter at university – actually, you are one of them. You are immersed in herd mentality.
It was entering university as someone who had worked out in the real world that I begun to understand why so many people made negative comments about universities and academia. From orientation day onward rainbow flags are everywhere, posters advertising Marxist events decorate the walls, the material in classes consists of a constant reminder of the ‘ills in the Western world’s history’: minorities, gender and all the rest. Tell me, how are we to move forward and be ‘progressive’ if we just constantly contemplate previous misdeeds instead of discussing actual, realistic and necessary solutions to these problems? How is giving more and more material possessions to these groups going to achieve anything other than further alienation and the perpetuation of dependency? I will not hold my breath on receiving an answer, I have posed this question in classes only to be called ‘the N word’.
I started of my venture into philosophy with Plato’s Republic, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, Slavoj Zizek’s First as Tragedy, then as Farce (this is the first philosopher that I read and enjoyed, I now have a large collection of his work and recommend him to anyone who wants to read philosophy but have the perception of it being a boring and dry area). I have always been an avid reader, but I also love controversy. Since I was a child I have always gravitated towards things that people tell you to avoid, whether it be comedians (Frankie Boyle), literature (Lolita), naturally I sought out ‘controversial’ philosophers.
My disenfranchisement with the direction that universities push – social justice, open borders, the adding of Marxism to every single god damn class, the demonization of ‘white patriarchal straight males’ (generalising is bad, unless you meet a selected criteria. Didn’t something happen in the 1930/40’s that was caused by generalising a group of people? And in the USSR as well?) – pushed me towards exploring ideas outside of the media/corporation approved thought.
(continued in part 2)