Julius Evola- The Sufi of Rome
Page 10
The character he found most interesting in the film was Steiner, played by the actor Alain Cluny. ‘Steiner is the archetypical intellectual. Despite his playing the organ in church, befriending priests and so on, he does not believe in the Transcendent. So, Fellini has him commit suicide, after having killed his own children. Perhaps over-sentimental – Fellini often lays that on thick, with a trowel – very Italian - but still, another clever metaphor. Steiner exemplifies a certain type of intellectualism, the stress on the “head”, yet he is inwardly soft. Like lobsters, they are hard outside and mushy inside...Our intellectuals are like that...But only the more sensitive, naive perhaps, really worry about that in a personal, felt way, like Steiner. “There is no God, well, let’s go and have a Campari!” that is more likely to be their attitude today. Steiner’s deadly coherence eludes them. The same for the revolution. Very few members of our intelligentsia would be like to man the barricades. They only act, make noises. Theatrical buffoons. Like many who cheered the fascist regime way back. I wish they would be like Steiner...I really do. I mean, that they would destroy themselves. And, if they cut off their own progeny, it would at least help with not perpetuating their breed...’
THE TRAITOR’S TALE
Given his kshatriya, warrior code of honour, treason was something he regarded absolutely beyond the pale. It conflicted with everything he publicly believed and taught. Like cowardice, it was a capital sin, the sin against the Holy Ghost. Something that could never, never be forgiven. The traitor was lower than the lowest worm. That is why one day we were shocked when one of the Solstice group was exposed as a police informer, an agent provocateur. He had caused some comrades to be arrested. There was a bomb plot, a murky story...As the news spread through the far right network, it stunned me. I knew the young chap. I shall call him Roberto. A fair-haired, tall and handsome lad. German-looking, he really stuck out in a city of small, dark Italians. I had often talked philosophy with him. Roberto had always struck me as a fanatical devotee. He quoted Evola incessantly, had read all of his books – something I admit I never quite managed – and could discuss all their implications. Besides, apart from coming across as very bright, he was also a man of action. In the clashes between neo-fascists and the ultra-leftists at the University (that was in 1968, the height of the student unrest), he was always at the forefront. Roberto was brave, resolute and intelligent – all the qualities desirable in a leader. Yes, he had an incongruous falsetto voice but it did not seem to matter. Younger guys idolised him – he was their hero. I knew he had been studying Islam at the Oriental Institute in Via Merulana. He told me his thesis centred on some Muslim sect, but that was an area of knowledge totally obscure to me and I remember little about it. However, I recall how he had spoken of an ‘Islamic Christ’, someone who had been crucified in Baghdad for blasphemy. Of course, it was only much later that I realised al-Hallaj was the figure he meant.
Roberto’s betrayal was incomprehensible to me. I could not figure out how he could have done that. I could not even begin to fathom his motives. What would he have gained from it? Money? But his family was wealthy. Was he a Communist all along? Possibly, but I just could not reconcile the doctrinaire, enthusiastic Evola fan I knew with the image of a crypto-Marxist-Leninist. It did not make sense. And yet there had to be a reason for what he had done. Also, the way he had been found out was odd. He had openly inquired about the phone number of a comrade who next day had been arrested on charge of terrorism. Naturally, the fellow who had given Roberto the number had put two and two together and told everybody. It looked like an extremely naive, stupid way to behave. As if he had deliberately wanted to be unmasked. I had to ask Evola about it.
At first, he looked pained. Hardly ever had I seen him looking so affected. I had expected that, because he knew Roberto personally. But suddenly his face became radiant, as if contemplating some inner, splendid vision. It astonished me. Then he spoke: ‘A hero who shows himself to be a traitor...yes, shocking. Roberto has made himself despicable in our eyes. And, as you say, it looks almost as if he did so voluntarily. An enigma, no? A mystery. Why? To understand that, you have to leave behind the usual, trivial explanations. Roberto was too clever for that – you know that, no? You must ask yourself: when all the possible, ordinary hypotheses have been considered and found implausible, then...what?’
He paused for a long time. Looked at me intensely, studying me. I felt he was seeking for some clue in my expression. Something to indicate I was on the right track, divining his thoughts. Alas, I was bewildered. He continued, slowly, as if thinking aloud: ‘Perhaps the hero wanted, intended to become infamous...Yes, there is no escaping from that. Roberto broke the code. Did the impermissible. Betrayed his closest friends, his comrades. Another Judas, you might say. Like Judas, he did that openly. You know, in the Gospels there are various explanations why Judas betrayed Christ. One is that he was a thief. He kept the common purse and had stolen money belonging to all. So his motive was financial, greed. That explanation is banal. Not worth considering. But elsewhere it says that Satan had caused Judas to betray. That is deeper, compared with the other one, but it too won’t quite do. Satanic influence is too broad a concept. Covers too much. Just the same, you should know that there is a Sufi teaching saying that Satan was God’s true subject. He refused to bow to man. He would only bow to God. A mystic says that Iblis, the Devil, is the perfect lover...Not Islamically acceptable but...Out of that total, passionate love, Iblis chose to make himself despicable. The loathing, the shame and the rejection his refusal brought him for all time to come constituted both a purification and an exaltation...’
He stopped. I was eager to hear more but he was silent. When he resumed, it was about something else. I did not feel like mentioning Roberto again. But now, in hindsight, I think he had told me everything I needed to know. The comparison with al-Hallaj’s heretical views on the Devil holds the key to understanding the mystery of Roberto’s betrayal. He had indeed done that intentionally. Had he been a spy in the conventional sense, he would have taken elementary precautions. It would be a poor spy who behaved in the foolish way he did. Roberto was too intelligent for that. No, I am morally certain he had wanted to be caught. He had chosen the path leading to disgrace, shame and blame. A hero degraded to the lowest rank, that of a police informer, a spy. Everybody thought he had let down not only his comrades but also his spiritual master, Evola himself. In fact, I am now convinced – or I think I am – that Roberto was acting in accordance with the Baron’s inner teachings. Either Evola had disclosed that to him directly or he had divined it, that I shall never know. But, combined with Roberto’s studies in Islamic mysticism, I feel it must be the truth.
What happened to Roberto? He simply disappeared and was never heard of again. Maybe it was simply self-preservations, as angry comrades probably would have killed him. Some say he went abroad. To this day, I do not know what became of him. I sometimes like to imagine he converted to Islam and lived on modestly and darkly in a country like Morocco, in the guise of some humble sheikh. Maybe one day he will emerge from his chosen obscurity and lead a renewal of Islam, who knows?
THE FUHRER AND ISLAM
That extraordinary footnote in Men among the Ruins which suggests that Hitler was just a pawn in a diabolical, almost cosmic conspiracy – uallahi! Even the Fuhrer’s anti-Semitism was part of that, the passage intimates. In other words, Hitler was the unwitting instrument of dark forces beyond his comprehension. An astounding view. So far out, so absurd, outrageous that... could there be something in it? Some will object that, implausibility apart, the idea would paradoxically result in whitewashing Hitler from his inhuman persecutions of the Jews. Unthinkable. Evola must have meant something else. Anyway, as a result of Nazi horrors, anti-Semitism is now morally impossible. On the other hand, it is a fact that in the state of Israel a new type of Jew had been born. The Baron seemed to acknowledge, even at times to applaud, that development.
Nonetheless, Evola was no fan of Adolf
Hitler. After delving into the famous Table Talks, the Fuhrer’s conversations as recorded by Martin Bormann, I asked whether he knew them. Hitler’s thoughts on religion appeared to me, basically still a good Catholic boy (though I did not avow that to him), rather crass. He assented: ‘Hitler’s personal ideas about the Christian religion were virtually identical with those of Voltaire, Diderot and the French philosophes, the leading lights of the so-called Enlightenment. Religion for them was simply priestcraft, ignorance and superstition. Hitler avers that he owed his anti-religious ideas to those “freethinkers”. Not that they really knew how to think! But, even staying on the superficial, outer plane, Hitler’s theology is crude. He took on board the cheapest form of anticlericalism. His schooldays experiences, perhaps. But they were private ideas. In practice, he had learnt from the aborted Kulturkampf launched by Bismarck in the XIX century that attacking the churches head-on is bound to be self-defeating. That is why he kept his real views to himself....I would not take his neo-paganism too seriously - he had the good sense to poke fun at any attempt to revive the cult of Wotan. And his references to Islam also are hardly profound. He fantasises about being prayed for by Arabs and Moroccans... But I suspect he was tongue in cheek...Arabs certainly had no love for English or French colonial rule but that has nothing to do with adoring Hitler. Nor is Islam essentially anti-Semitic. Jews are a protected people in the Qur’an, like the Christians. Historically, Jews have done much better under Islam than they have under Christianity...yes, I know, some believe Muhammad’s action prevented the Jewish tribes from taking over Arabia...a bit like the Inquisition in Spain...we’ll talk about that another time.’
(Here he quoted the Muslim thinker Ibn Arabi and said, in passing, that Muhammad was the ideal, complete man in Islam. He combined both the prophetic and the warrior functions. Brahmin and kshatriya, soldier, at the same time. Priest, prophet, patriarch, strategist, trader, judge, mystic and legislator – all those qualities and roles were harmoniously combined in him. Muslims consider Muhammad a truly universal man.)
‘The Church’s official teaching on death and the next world are aimed at the masses, “the great unwashed”, but at least you could say they contain a hint at transcendence, at what is higher. (Nietzsche said that Christianity is Platonism for the masses but he meant that as a criticism!) Hitler’s ill-digested scientism does away with that possibility. He especially feared the ascetics – the Sufis. He gave himself away. He was incapable of grasping that it is among the ascetics that the people of transcendence are to be found.’
‘The Table Talks reveal an odd mixture of insights and inanities. For example, he says that it is good and natural to allow foreign words and expressions into the German language. That is in accordance with the spirit of our age but I disagree. It encourages and facilitates the bastardising of a tongue. Unlike English, German has retained more of its linguistic purity. Look how even the democratic and egalitarian French through their famed Academie Francaise try to guard the integrity of their language from foreign intrusions. Fascism gets ridiculed because it sought to exclude alien words from Italian but it was basically right. No doubt it was a battle doomed to frustration but...so what? At least it was fought. That was good. Just look how corrupted, debased Dante’s idiom has become today!’
‘Hitler also appears amazingly daft when he says that the god of the Jews chose them for their “stupidity”. Huh! How could anyone say anything like that? If that race has ever been known for anything, it has been for its brains. Yes, they are smart, very smart. Corrosive smartness but...it definitely helps those who have it! The Germans and the peoples of Europe learnt that the hard way. It served Hitler right. From where he is now, if he has not wholly vanished, he must rue that.’
Was there anything good about Hitler’s ideas, I asked? ‘His crusade against bolshevism was both necessary and right. Note how the Americans and the British themselves afterwards were obliged to continue that, albeit in an irresolute and half-hearted fashion. The leader cult, the Fuhrerprinzip, was flawed, though. He should have restored the monarchy. Not Kaiser Wilhelm, he was a spent force, but the Crown Prince. The Nazi Party was no true elite. The SS might have been but unfortunately Himmler was not up to it. Unforgiveable he should have allowed the SS – the Death Head Units - to become concentration camp guards. A jailer’s job! How could an order of warriors ever get mixed up with that? It shows you how muddle-headed the Reichfuhrer was. Despite all the posturing, his petty-bourgeois origins came to the fore. In the end, he conspired against Hitler. He showed himself a traitor. Not for higher reasons (a hint at the Roberto case, I felt), no. He simply wanted to save his skin. It did him no good...The man who had spoken of fidelity, unconditional fidelity – “My honour is my fidelity” was the motto – turned out to be faithless. And what about obedience? He had told his SS to be obedient like the Jesuits of old, perinde ac cadaver. You know St Ignatius of Loyola’s slogan? The Jesuit should behave ‘like a dead body’. Kind of corpse-like, that is. Meaning that he should have no will of his own, just practice blind obedience. He should be like a robot, controlled by the will of he who gives orders, who commands. Obedience without asking why, without reflection, without hesitation, without trying to weigh up the pros and cons. Himmler had commanded the SS to be like that. But did he himself obey in the end? No. He failed to live up to his own principles...how sad.’
I pointed out that the Jesuit notion of a corpse-like obedience had been the object of condemnation by the National-Socialist ideologue, Alfred Rosenberg. I cannot forget the sparkle in his eyes when I mention that. ‘Yes, of course. He argued like that in his book, The Myth of the 20th Century. It is a rather stodgy and disorganised work. But do you know that Rosenberg also attributed the genesis of the idea of total obedience to Islam? He quoted a work in which St Ignatius of Loyola’s precepts are traced back to Sufi texts – the disciple, the Murid, should be in the sheikh’s hand like a walking stick. Rosenberg fancied himself to be sniping at Loyola but, malgre lui, he stumbled on an important truth...’ he would not expand on that. Only later, recalling the episode, the light dawned on me. He had given me hint, a clue to his allegiances. As well as the opportunity to dismiss Alfred Rosenberg’s ill-digested meditations. On the Myth of the 20th Century he added: ‘Rosenberg’s book was never officially backed as party ideology. Hitler forbade it. He found it quite unreadable. It only sold a million copies under the Third Reich because the Catholic Church attacked it. In other words, it owed its success to the Roman Catholic authorities who were stupid enough to pay attention to it. Hitler said the book was read largely by its opponents. I wish my own books had been officially anathemised. That bishops and preachers ranted against Revolt against the Modern World from the pulpits every Sunday! That the Vatican press lambasted Julius Evola daily. Then my readership would shoot up overnight – I might even become a best-seller! But today the Vatican would not make that mistake. They have learnt the lesson. Ignoring your opponent is often the best course of action. Denying him the oxygen of publicity. Having many enemies is a good thing...I usually do not , but here I must agree with one of Mussolini’s slogans, Many Enemies – Much Honour. But the day will come when they will write much about me, mark my words...’
‘Rosenberg was completely mixed up about what counts as traditional, true values. For example, in the Myth he likens the Pope to...The Dalai Lama! He meant the comparison to be damning. Both the Pope and the Dalai Lama for him were at head of a backward, priestly cabal. But of course Lamaism is a genuine and profound expression of the world of Tradition. It is because of that the Communist Chinese took care to invade Tibet and bring that ancient culture to an end. They could not abide the existence of a living spiritual milieu antithetical to their perverted system, so close to China’s frontiers. Rosenberg, from different premises, shared that modernist, subversive hatred for a traditional way of life. In that, he showed his depressing limitations.’
Speaking of Adriano Romualdi, he surprised me. Adriano had written a
somewhat hagiographic account of the Master, but Evola was breezy about him: ‘You know of the rumours about his father, Pino. They whisper that he was Mussolini’s illegitimate offspring. Apparently, he actually boasts about it. I find that bizarre. A bastard is a bastard. It is like boasting being a prostitute’s son. If anything, one should try and keep it dark. Bastards in the past were banned from succeeding to a family title and Canon Law forbade their access to Holy Orders. Everyone accepted being a bastard was a liability. Because you could never be sure who the father was, in fact...What matters most, your ancestors, where you came from, was uncertain in a bastard’s case. Mind you, there have been some notable men born out of wedlock. From William the Conqueror to Leonardo. But I am sure they never thought of their irregular birth as something to be proud of.’
Adriano tragically died in a car crash after I had left Italy, so I never knew Evola’s reactions straight from the horse’s mouth, though I read something he wrote. The circumstances of Adriano’s death, I was told, were somewhat ludicrous. Some peasants had rushed to help the victims but Adriano had been playing some cassette or tape with Nazi music. As soon as they recognised the strains of the hated song the peasants had retreated, letting the wounded die. Very likely, an apocryphal story. Still, I don’t think Adriano would have minded it all that much. Being saved by Bolsheviks? No, no way. He would have considered death preferable!