/lit/ - Literature

>>11116042
>>11116342

Not the guys you're responding to, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding Evola's racialist views. I'm going to lay them out in a couple of posts and perhaps they can be drawn on from now on for these threads.

In Evola's writings, race of the body, or regularity of the phenotype, are features born out of feudal ties and national (in the etymological sense) selection as matter "formed" by institutions that embody certain ideas. All of the racialist stuff in Evola is a kind of inherited soul, a kind of psychological epigenetics, that he believes moral, intellectual and spiritual appetites are bred into the blood by culture as "form," that once those institutions are gone, the individual can possibly revitalize those qualities through instinct and physical preservation as long as revolutionary fervor ends and cross-breeding doesn't occur. War, conflict and tension can awaken those elements as an ethic and therefore spawn those institutions once again. Hence, a militaristic, disciplined and chivalric style of life always serves to renew and accentuate the spirit of the people.

For Evola, the core of traditional games and sacred actions was a renewal of the race, a revival of the ethic, phenomenology, and life of the victory of the spiritual, racial legacy, not taken in a mere biological sense. However, in a world where traditional institutions are gone, individuals have to rely on instinct and ethics rather than principles and traditional structures. Interbreeding can kill this possibility, and this is what Evola used to justify ethnocentrism of the Italians as they developed their African colonies. This is how Evola argues against miscegenation in a time of racialist fervor:
>"When it comes to this point [where civilization is no longer ordered "from above"], the only forces that can be relied upon are those of the blood, which still carries atavistically within itself, through race and instinct, the echo and the trace of the departed higher element that had been lost; it is only in this way that the "racist" thesis in defense of the purity of the blood can be validly upheld. . . . [W]e must never mistake the formative element for the element that is formed, nor the conditioning for the conditioned factor. (Revolt, 57-58)"

cont.