Julius Evola, Radical Traditionalism, and Ur Fascism

[Johnny Dangerous]

I didn't want to interrupt the "Perennialism" thread by going further off topic, so I made this thread. Sorry if it's out of context. I find these things interesting because I think "far right" spirituality (my own view of course) is a great example of one the weird, ugly directions that seemingly noble ideals can lead. Obviously they exist on the other side too with Stalinism, Maoism, and some would argue Leninism etc.

Julius Evola was hardly an incidental fascist, maybe you could call him a far-right anarchist who happened to circumstantially voice some criticism of other fascists...not like that was uncommon, they spent as much time conspiring against one another as Stalinists etc...The idea that he was or is "apolitical" does not play out, including simply by examining those that have been heavily influenced by him today.

The whole "apolitical" thing is central to third way ideology, it's about waging a cultural "war of position" instead of one that is based just on overt political ideology. Fascism was as much a cultural/art/esoteric movement as it was an overt political philosophy..in fact there wasn't really a unified political philosophy behind fascism anyway. Far right ideology is a large span of stuff, from the SS to the Brownshirts to the early days of Earth First and some forms of "Green Anarchism"...it is not one unified way of thinking, but a tendency.

Here's an interesting Umberto Eco piece on "Ur Fascism".

http://65.99.230.10:81/collect/politics ... ir/doc.pdf

It's worth thinking about from a Buddhist perspective, because for so many of the kind of "proto fascists" in the area of esoteric studies, the idea of a Kali Yuga or a Dark Age of some sort and a return to a kind of cultural and/or racial Golden Age and regeneration was a big deal. That is of course not to say the idea itself, or people believing in it is fascist, it's just interesting because it is an idea (just like some of the results of Marxist beliefs) that ends in some very bad things, both being based on the idea of history being something which can sort of be permanently manipulated into a "better" result.

[Konchog1]

I will always assert that in many ways, Buddhism is a far right worldview.

It teaches that the world is full of increasing darkness and that only a return to the Golden Age of the distant past will be of lasting benefit. Or as Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel put it when asked about who he wanted to win the last American election: "It doesn't matter".

This is reactionary to the extreme and reactionarism is technically far right.

[gregkavarnos]

Define right and left first and then this discussion can actually begin to make some sense.

Fascism and Nazism can be left wing (National Socialism) or right wing (Corporatism).

So are we talking right vs left, or authoritarian vs libertarian, or socialist vs free market, statist vs individualist, conservative vs revolutionary, reactionary vs rebellious, or...?

Define terms, first, then tear each others throats out.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I will always assert that in many ways, Buddhism is a far right worldview.

It teaches that the world is full of increasing darkness and that only a return to the Golden Age of the distant past will be of lasting benefit. Or as Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel put it when asked about who he wanted to win the last American election: "It doesn't matter".

This is reactionary to the extreme and reactionarism is technically far right.

While I hate to ascribe political points of view to Buddhist leaders, it seems to be a small minority that hold views that are truly like those ideologies of the political far right. Many more (HHDL as an obvious example) seem to hold views that veer to the left, with alot of qualifiers.

It's hard to pinpoint a particular location on the political spectrum, but I really don't see how the majority of Buddhist thinkers would fall into "far right" lines of thought, especially with regard to the inherent cultural stuff, and views of things like warfare. Different forms of liberation theology and such have similar ideas about times of great strife and renewal, and those are considered "left wing".

Marxism itself follows the same rough pattern of a kind of 'dark age' of overproduction, and eventually ends up in the stateless utopian Communism, so how can such ideas about history be only "right wing"? I don't t think it's logically consistent to take such a ubiquitous idea and claim it's to one side of the spectrum or the other.

I remember years ago in my days of socialist activism (there's some info about me for you) someone came to a meeting, listen to some basic ideas about socialism, and eventual Communism....and telling us that it was basically like we believed that someone was coming to save us all and create utopia...we just called it The Working Class instead of Jesus. I laughed my ass off, gave it some real thought..and decided this person had a really good point.

[Konchog1]

Define right and left first and then this discussion can actually begin to make some sense.

Fascism and Nazism can be left wing (National Socialism) or right wing (Corporatism).

So are we talking right vs left, or authoritarian vs libertarian, or socialist vs free market, statist vs individualist, conservative vs revolutionary, reactionary vs rebellious, or...?

Define terms, first, then tear each others throats out.

The way I generally think of it is in terms of end game. What is the end of the means for the philosophy?

Far Left - Radical - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the future
Left - Progressive - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the future
Right - Conservative - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the past
Far Right - Reactionary - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the past

Ex.
Radical - Communism
Progressive - Social Democracy
Conservative - Conservatism
Reactionary - National Socialism

So Buddhism is generally Conservative, but it's end game is Reactionary so I classify Buddhism as (largely) Far Right.

What horribly confuses matters is some Rightists want past values (say Racism) whereas others want only past excellence. For example, Putin is Far Right because he wants to return Russia to the powerful Russias of the past and takes great inspiration from Kievan Rus and Imperial Russia. However, I greatly doubt he'll seek to restore Serfdom (which was basically slavery).

This is only a brief summary, I'm not getting into economic policies here. For a better mapping of ideologies, I use this.

[kirtu]

Fascism and Nazism can be left wing (National Socialism)...

National Socialism wasn't left wing at all except as a propaganda tool for the cameras. It did have some socialist elements but this was not significant (i.e. today's Germany, a prototypical democratic socialist state, is NOT National Socialism stripped of genocide and war making). The National Socialist left wing did exist prior to the Night of the Long Knives and it was basically led by Joseph Goebbels after they took control of the then NS left-wing from the Strasser brothers. Following the Night of the Long Knives there was no more effective NS left-wing.

Kirt

[kirtu]

The way I generally think of it is in terms of end game. What is the end of the means for the philosophy?

Far Left - Radical - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the future
Left - Progressive - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the future
Right - Conservative - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the past
Far Right - Reactionary - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the past

Ex.
Radical - Communism
Progressive - Social Democracy
Conservative - Conservatism
Reactionary - National Socialism

So Buddhism is generally Conservative, but it's end game is Reactionary so I classify Buddhism as (largely) Far Right.

??? By your own definition (although I don't think it fits) Buddhism is far left and progressive.

The Therevadins following the bodhisattva ideal and Mahayanists are progressives because after three uncountable eons they produce Buddhas and as experience continues more and more beings become Buddhas. The vision of the future here is the total liberation of Buddhahood following the sutric path.

The Therevadins following the Arhat ideal, Pure Landers, Zen Buddhists and Vajrayanists are radical leftists by your definition (I'd say radical futurists) because they swiftly attain liberation of the Arahant and total Buddhahood respectively and want to liberate the entire universe as fast as possible.

Kirt

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

JD interesting essay.

The "proletariat as messiah" idea is kind of a libertarian critique I suppose.

I am reading some history of Britain at the moment.

The Tories preferred "God, king and country".

And many Whigs were sympathetic to "liberté, égalité, fraternité".

But maybe the real political solution is "three acres and a cow":

[Konchog1]

Fascism and Nazism can be left wing (National Socialism)...

National Socialism wasn't left wing at all except as a propaganda tool for the cameras. It did have some socialist elements but this was not significant (i.e. today's Germany, a prototypical democratic socialist state, is NOT National Socialism stripped of genocide and war making). The National Socialist left wing did exist prior to the Night of the Long Knives and it was basically led by Joseph Goebbels after they took control of the then NS left-wing from the Strasser brothers. Following the Night of the Long Knives there was no more effective NS left-wing.

Kirt

I've heard that Hitler wanted to acquire the Spear of Destiny and give to his handlers in the Thule Society so that they could summon aliens.

The way I generally think of it is in terms of end game. What is the end of the means for the philosophy?

Far Left - Radical - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the future
Left - Progressive - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the future
Right - Conservative - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the past
Far Right - Reactionary - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the past

Ex.
Radical - Communism
Progressive - Social Democracy
Conservative - Conservatism
Reactionary - National Socialism

So Buddhism is generally Conservative, but it's end game is Reactionary so I classify Buddhism as (largely) Far Right.

??? By your own definition (although I don't think it fits) Buddhism is far left and progressive.

The Therevadins following the bodhisattva ideal and Mahayanists are progressives because after three uncountable eons they produce Buddhas and as experience continues more and more beings become Buddhas. The vision of the future here is the total liberation of Buddhahood following the sutric path.

The Therevadins following the Arhat ideal, Pure Landers, Zen Buddhists and Vajrayanists are radical leftists by your definition (I'd say radical futurists) because they swiftly attain liberation of the Arahant and total Buddhahood respectively and want to liberate the entire universe as fast as possible.

Kirt

Buddhahood is based on the historical accomplishment of Shakyamuni. Enlightenment is elevated in importance above everything else in life. Also Kali Yuga and Maitreya.

[kirtu]

The way I generally think of it is in terms of end game. What is the end of the means for the philosophy?

Far Left - Radical - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the future
Left - Progressive - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the future
Right - Conservative - Slow and relatively minor change to society based on some vision of the past
Far Right - Reactionary - Fundamental and drastic change to society based on some vision of the past

Ex.
Radical - Communism
Progressive - Social Democracy
Conservative - Conservatism
Reactionary - National Socialism

So Buddhism is generally Conservative, but it's end game is Reactionary so I classify Buddhism as (largely) Far Right.

??? By your own definition (although I don't think it fits) Buddhism is far left and progressive.

The Therevadins following the bodhisattva ideal and Mahayanists are progressives because after three uncountable eons they produce Buddhas and as experience continues more and more beings become Buddhas. The vision of the future here is the total liberation of Buddhahood following the sutric path.

The Therevadins following the Arhat ideal, Pure Landers, Zen Buddhists and Vajrayanists are radical leftists by your definition (I'd say radical futurists) because they swiftly attain liberation of the Arahant and total Buddhahood respectively and want to liberate the entire universe as fast as possible.

Kirt

Buddhahood is based on the historical accomplishment of Shakyamuni. Enlightenment is elevated in importance above everything else in life. Also Kali Yuga and Maitreya.

Buddhism is based on Shakyamuni's enlightenment but it is not limited to Shakyamuni's enlightenment. There were other Buddhas as well. However the vision is forward looking toward a more liberated future not a reactionary backward looking system with a limited number of Buddhas (depending on one's interpretation). The very act of liberation takes one outside of samsara to begin with. The ultimate vision is a samsara purified and transformed into a Buddhafield.

Kirt

[Konchog1]

Buddhahood is based on the historical accomplishment of Shakyamuni. Enlightenment is elevated in importance above everything else in life. Also Kali Yuga and Maitreya.

Buddhism is based on Shakyamuni's enlightenment but it is not limited to Shakyamuni's enlightenment. There were other Buddhas as well. However the vision is forward looking toward a more liberated future not a reactionary backward looking system with a limited number of Buddhas (depending on one's interpretation). The very act of liberation takes one outside of samsara to begin with. The ultimate vision is a samsara purified and transformed into a Buddhafield.

Kirt[/quote]Inspiration from the past as opposed to inspiration from untested theories

[jeeprs]

Evola might have been fascist or had fascist tendencies, but the key point about the 'philosophical traditionalists' (including Guenon, Schuon, Burkhardt, Coomaraswamy and others) is rejection of key aspects of 'modernity'. This is based, as noted above, on the underlying idea that ours is a 'degenerate age', expressed in mythological terminology as 'kali yuga'. I don't know if that idea is literally true but I am sure it captures a profound truth about the modern world through mythological language.

That said, I am sure there are many things that modern thinking takes for granted, or simply assumes about the world, which would be deeply inimical to traditional Buddhism as much as any other traditional philosophy.

[Johnny Dangerous]

That said, I am sure there are many things that modern thinking takes for granted, or simply assumes about the world, which would be deeply inimical to traditional Buddhism as much as any other traditional philosophy.

That is for sure, and I for one don't mean to imply that Buddhism somehow is inherently supportive of modern liberal democracy, capitalism, or anything else.

[jeeprs]

Well, if there are legitimate grounds for traditional philosophy to reject aspects of modernity, does this mean that such criticism can necessarily be charachterized as 'fascist'?

I have always had a sneaking thought that a major aim of modern liberal democracies is to 'make the world a safe place for the ignorant'. I suppose that is a very provocative thing to say, but I still think there is something in it. Modern individualism, even though it has good points, and even though the safeguarding of individual rights is important, often puts the individual ego in the position of being 'law unto itself'. Individual proclivities, attitudes and inclinations are put into a higher position than moral principles. This is epitomized by the 'greed is good' side of capitalist economies and the exploitation of the drive for pleasure as the basis of much economic activity.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Well, if there are legitimate grounds for traditional philosophy to reject aspects of modernity, does this mean that such criticism can necessarily be charachterized as 'fascist'?

I have always had a sneaking thought that a major aim of modern liberal democracies is to 'make the world a safe place for the ignorant'. I suppose that is a very provocative thing to say, but I still think there is something in it. Modern individualism, even though it has good points, and even though the safeguarding of individual rights is important, often puts the individual ego in the position of being 'law unto itself'. Individual proclivities, attitudes and inclinations are put into a higher position than moral principles. This is epitomized by the 'greed is good' side of capitalist economies and the exploitation of the drive for pleasure as the basis of much economic activity.

No, and I didn't say that kind of broad criticism was fascist..there is also left wing criticism of modernity and liberalism, swathes of it from socialist and anarchists. The above is not really a right wing critique of modernity either, and seems to me quite a bit different from the longing for a golden age, the appeal to "the will of the people", the glorification of the warrior culture, the ideas of racial or national rebirth etc. that go with much far-right thought.

ON the other side, one of the Golden Age concepts of left wing thought is the pre-agricultural "communism". Functionally, this is not so much different from the Golden Age of traditionalism.

It all makes me wonder, from a Buddhist perspective is it not possible that we should dispense entirely with these sorts of notions of permanent change of some sort being possible for the world, are there not other ways to understand the relevance of the Kali Yuga? In either case the idea is us being able to permanently fix what is simply not permanently fixable...so if one is interested in politics or engagement in thinking about politics as far as Buddhism goes, it seems that either view of history is very flawed.

[gregkavarnos]

Here's an interesting Umberto Eco piece on "Ur Fascism".

http://65.99.230.10:81/collect/politics ... ir/doc.pdf

I seriously reccomend that anybody wishing to engage in this discussion read this article first. It will immediately answer many of the questions being asked here and allow the discussion to develop intelligently and quickly.

Thanks for posting that JD.

[jeeprs]

Well, I scanned the Eco article. He makes the point that fascists of all kinds often appropriate aspects of tradition and then interpret these in various syncetistic ways. But it doesn't follow that 'traditionalist philosophers are therefore fascist' (because some B are A, doesn't mean that all A are B, whatever logical fallacy that is).

Besides I don't quite get why mention of the perennial philosophy is such a hot-button topic here. I would have thought that Buddhism generally has a fairly open-minded attitude towards other spiritual traditions, which doesn't mean it has to agree that they are all the same, or are all of equal merit. At least they do recognize spiritual and philosophical truths of the kind which are virtually incomprehensible to many modern minds.

We live in a culture where the dominant intellectual paradigm is directly and explicitly antagonistic to any notion of 'dharma' as 'moral law' or 'principle'. Much modern philosophy, so-called, is actually deeply anti-philosophical and leads to absurd conclusions that basically amount to 'true=false' (or "whatever", according to well-known social philosopher Bart Simpson.) Nihilism, not as a conscientious philosophical viewpoint, but an ethical malady, is widespread and insidious. The Universe is said to be devoid of reason whatever, or alternatively comprises a so-called 'multiverse' within which everything that can happen, does, for ever and ever. And so on.

So I think the reason why the critiques of Guenon and others seem so confronting is because they question many of the foundational ideas of post-Enlightenment philosophy. As the OP notes, this has also been done by the New Left and other movements (I am only now starting to understand some of the criticisms of the Frankfurt School). But why not take the 'a-political' nature of such criticism on face value? The point of all such teachings is after all mainly concerned with 'the inner revolution' (or 'the only revolution' as Krishnamurti used to call it).

And finally, if anyone has time to read a 55-page essay, for a really interesting analysis of why 60's types such as myself are interested in the notion of the perennial philosophy, you will find it hard to go past Camille Paglia's Cults and Cosmic Consciousness. (I see your Eco and raise you a Paglia )

There was a massive failure by American universities to address the spiritual cravings of the post-sixties period. The present cultural landscape is bleak: mainline religions torn between their liberal and conservative wings; a snobbishly secular intelligentsia; an alternately cynical or naively credulous media; and a mass of neo-pagan cults and superstitions seething beneath the surface...

[Johnny Dangerous]

No one's being closed minded about anything.

I'm sure you know about the huge connection between appropriation of eastern mysticism/symbols and fascism- It's huge. The freaking Swastika is a partial example of fascism appropriation of esoteric symbolism..it wasn't just coincidence.

Does it mean everyone in that category is a strict adherent of fascism, no, of course not..it means that there was a deep connection historically between white guys trying to create a sort universal (usually with a concept of racial identity such as Aryan, harkening to ancient Rome etc.) spiritual philosophy - which BTW tended to encompass a vision of restructuring society, and the cultural movements that were eventually subsumed into fascism.

Outside of this you are arguing a bunch of stuff that I don't really disagree with, but I don't see how it has to do with the subject matter exactly either.

Also, if you notice, i didn't say anything about perennialism, and this thread specifically mentions only Evola, who is a "radical traditionalist", i'm not sure every person involved in Perennialism has the same kind of culpability that Evola did.

But why not take the 'a-political' nature of such criticism on face value?

Because as i've sad many times, the entire point of "Third Position" far right thought is a strategy of recruitment through "culture war" to a form of revolutionary nationalism complete with dog whistle politics etc...not making this stuff up, you can read it from leaders of those movements..the whole point of calling it "apolitical" was in fact to avoid the obvious political criticism that comes with openly being a fascist. BTW, I have no idea how really powerful they are (I suspect not very) but there are organizations and groups today of people in the arts etc. that fully embrace these ideas and spend scads of time telling you how they are "not political", then they turn around and tell you how Muslims should probably just all leave their ancestral white homeland (funnily, i've see a few "minority" versions of this kind of cultural revolutionary nationalism too). Alot of these people LOVE Julius Evola..that doesn't mean it's Evola's fault exactly, but it sure does mean the philosophy seems to mainly attract and breed a certain mindset about the world - even today.

Maybe it's about the line between traditionalism, and radical traditionalism that seeks to actively return the world to a perceived "correct" state. To be fair though the same sort of line probably exists on the left...