Observations on the 33rd SS Division “Charlemagne”

Published in “Siegrunen” Magazine – Vol. V, No.4, Number 28, January 1982

This article is based on a written interview with Oberstrumbannführer E. Raybaud, former commander of SS Grenadier Regiment 58 as given to Jean-Louis Roba. Some further modifications have been made by the editor.

E. Raybaud was a high-ranking officer and leader of the “Milice” in the Limoges area of southern France during the German occupation. In that capacity, he led the fight against the local ‘resistance’ forces, whose best fighters were the communists under their leader, Guingouin. Partially due to the Mediterranean temperament of the people who lived in that area, the battles with the ‘resistance’ were particularly bloodthirsty ones. Atrocities were committed by both sides and captives were sometimes tortured or burned to death.

Raybaud disapproved of all such actions and he only wanted to maintain order. As an old soldier who had fought in the May 1940 campaign against the Germans, he was not particularly politically oriented. But following the Allied landings in 1944 (Operation “Overlord” and “Anvil”), disorder began to grow as previously quiescent civilians made an effort to get into the camp of the victors. This resulted in uncontrolled attacks against the German and Vichy forces and brought about tragic reprisals such as at Tulle and Oradour.

In his article published in “Siegrunen” #12 (i.e. “French Volunteers of the Third Reich”), Mr. Lewis described the Milice as a sort of “Black and Tans.” This was not a totally correct observation. When the Vichy government began to rule the un-occupied zone of France, it had to raise a special police force for security purposes. This “Milice” as it was called was placed under the command of Joseph Darnand, an ex-soldier and hero of the 1940 war against the Germans. Darnand was loyal to Marshall Petain and he tried to maintain order and defend the legitimacy of the Vichy government. Quite a few men enlisted in the special “Milice” forces; some of them proved to be rather undesirable people but it was the same for the “other side” — this was not uncommon in a “civil war” of this nature.

Today, for a variety of reasons, the name “Milice” is in ill repute in France. Its men suffered the same fate as all losers do in a civil war, as the soldiers were held responsible for leaders who were either dead or missing. [Editor’s note: At the very least 100,000 people were put to death in ‘liberated’ France and among them were quite a few of the “Milicians”]. Before dis-cussing the operations of the French Waffen-SS, it is important to note some of the political problems that existed in France. The ‘collaborators’ were, like the men of the ‘resistance,’ divided in their beliefs and loyalties. While the “underground” was divided into communist and non-communist segments with even further sub-divisions, the forces of the Vichy regime also had its partitions. Some soldiers wanted to stay in France and fight the partisans while others preferred to go to the Eastern Front to fight the Bolsheviks; the latter group immediately began enlisting into the L.V.F. (Légion des Volontaires Français — or French Volunteer Legion Against Bolshevism), which was established in 1941. The “Milice” members generally felt that the war in the east was one between Germany and Russia and they preferred to fight against their “internal enemies” and leave the war against the Soviet Union to the “victors of 1940.” However, for symbolic purposes, the “Milice” sent a small contingent to serve with the L.V.F.

In 1943, young Frenchmen were given the opportunity to enlist into the Waffen-SS and this became the third French “force” to fight on the side of the Germans. While the “Milice” was not dependent on the Wehrmacht, it was sometimes sub-ordinated to it, for instance during the fighting against the partisans at “Les Gliers.” After the Allied sweep into France, the men of the “Milice” were force to flee France for Germany where they had to be incorporated into the Germany Army They had initially hoped to keep their identity intact by serving in a pure “Milice” unit, but this proved to be impossible and they found themselves sent to the Wildflecken troop training grounds to be incorporated into the SS Division “Charlemagne” along with survivors from the L.V.F. and the 7th SS Storm- brigade “Frankreich.”

Due to high levels of political antagonism it proved impos-sible to form units from the L.V.F., “Milice” and French SS within one SS Division. These soldiers were too devoted to their individual leaders, such as the “Milice’s” Darnand and the L.V.F.’s Doriot. It was therefore deemed necessary to split up the “Milice” personnel between the various Franch SS units.

With some regrets, the “Milice” officers accepted that decision and a “Milice” officer named Vaugelas was made chief-of-staff of the division under its new commander Oberführer Paud, who had been in command of the L.V.F.

Raybaud joined the division with the rank of Sturmbannführer (Major). Because of some early clashes between the soldiers, Raybaud used his authority to have political expressions banned in the barracks. Unfortunately he was not upheld by other officers at the time and some more outbreaks of fighting between different French factions transpired, (the ex-L.V.F. officers had not supported Raybaud’s political ban). Eventually Raybaud’s original judgment was supported by most of the officers in the division.

Towards the end of 1944, while still at the Wildflecken camp, the men of the “Charlemagne” Division were inspected by Darnand, the former L.V.F. political leader who had been appointed general inspector of French Forces in Germany. Darnand wanted the place of honor at the parade of the troops, but this was given over to the commander of the 28th SS Divi-sion “Wallonien,” Leon Degrelle, who was also present at Wild- flecken at that time. Darnand was given a poor reception by Oberführer Puaud and by the German inspector of the “Charlemagne” Division, Brigadeführer Krukenberg, and he left angrily the next day. On the other hand, Degrelle was better received, and after looking over some of the ex-“Milicians,” made the comment that: “Such a unit would find a place in my Stormbrigade!” [Editor’s note: Degrelle, impressed by the “Charlemagne” Division gave a short speech and apparently convinced one full barracks of French volunteers to come over to his division! The time of this parade seems to have been in November 1944 ].

At the beginning of December 1944, for an unknown reason, the commander of the 2nd French Regiment (now 58th SS), Stubaf. Bridoux, left the unit. After meeting with his father, he decided to join a “pure” SS battalion from the 1st French Regiment (now 57th SS). [Editor’s note: At this time the 57th SS Regiment was developing into an ideologically “pure” SS unit while the 58th SS Regiment retained more of a French orientation]. Stubaf. Raybaud now became the new commander of the 58th SS Regiment. But he found the composition of the regiment to be about 15% ex-“Milice” and 80% former L.V.F. To avoid all incidents, he held a meeting with his officers and later assembled all of his men to ask them to moderate their passions and become united to improve the battle-worthiness of the regiment. Raybaud’s advice was listened to and afterwards all went well. There was only one incident. A young officer who was a member of the P.P.F. (Parti Populaire Francais; a French “populist” movement) led by Doriot, continued to agitate the men who came from the L.V.F. Stubaf. Raybaud asked for and obtained his transfer to the division staff. The commander of the 58th SS Regiment also had good contacts with the divisional chaplain, Monseigneur Mayol de Lupe, who had been the chaplain with the L.V.F., and his influence over former members of that formation helped to keep things going well.

A few weeks after assuming command, Raybaud discovered that a German officer had established a network of political control in his regiment. This officer, who was close to Brigfhr. Krukenberg, had many contacts with different French volunteers who kept him informed about the political thoughts of their comrades. Stubaf. Raybaud took the matter to Krukenberg, who actually knew nothing about it and who was happy to cooperate to bring this activity to an end. Even though the political antagonism disappeared, the men still had to be trained to be sent to the front.

Training Problems

Only the best men who volunteered were chosen to enlist into the Waffen-SS so naturally not all of the “Milicians” were sent to Wildflecken. Some of them had deserted in France, while others joined various National Socialist “police” units in Germany. For the Waffen-SS, the Germans chose the Frenchmen who either had military experience (as had Raybaud, as a former officer of the French Army), or were otherwise fit enough for battle conditions. Those that didn’t measure up or were considered untrustworthy were mostly sent to work in factories.

While the “Milicians” had seen action before, most of them were only experienced in the war against the partisans. Since this was a guerrilla war, the men of the “Milice” were unfamiliar with the demands of a mechanized war and of the material that was required for such a modern conflict. They had to all be retrained, and Wildflecken was really only suitable for a training program in spring and summer. During the winter the snow-covered everything and the main training grounds could not be used. So the “Charlemagne” training period was a very boring one compounded by insufficient equipment, [Editor’s note: Drill and callisthenics were the primary activities during this time]. The men grew tired of these “stupid exercises” and feeling deceived, some of them left to join other SS units (German or Walloon), which were being sent more quickly to the Eastern Front.

Stubaf. Raybaud noticed that the ex-L.V.F. officers who had fought in the East from nearly the beginning, were suffering from a great fatigue. A serious crisis occurred when the men were required to take a loyalty oath to the Führer. The ex- L.V.F. men did not understand why, after having fought for so many months in German uniform, that they were required now to swear their fidelity. And the “Milicians,” who wanted to retain their French identity above all else, simply refused to take the oath. Many soldiers did however agree to an oath that stressed only military operations for the duration of the war, but this was later altered and continued to cause misgivings among some of the French volunteers. [Editor’s note: Remember that in “those days” an oath was still a sacred undertaking! Today, in our “enlightened” modern society, hardly anyone takes them seriously ].

With the exception of the oath-taking episode, morale in the “Charlemagne” Division was high. While the political differences had not all vanished, the officers believed that frontline action would help to dissolve any “dangerous thoughts.” As in all active units, Stubaf. Raybaud noticed that his regiment consisted only of about 25% to 30% really good soldiers. The other men would be improved by the training program and later on at the front. The men of the 58th SS Regiment disapproved of the attitude of the soldiers of the 57th SS Regiment, which was considered the “pure SS” regiment. These French volunteers were really pro-German and seemed, at least to the men of the 58th SS Regiment, to have contempt for their homeland. Even Brighfhr. Krukenberg remarked: “Here there are young Frenchmen who are more SS than the SS themselves!” But to Stubaf. Raybaud, there was no problem. The young SS men of the 57th Regiment, did not really want to become Germans, but they had such an attitude because they wanted to be independent and considered themselves without a homeland. [Editor’s note: This was due in particular to the actions one would suppose, of the French ‘government’ and some of the French citizenry in the previous months]. Raybaud knew that they could not disavow their origins.

French SS bugler (previously unpublished). Provided courtesy of Bill

Oberführer Paud went to Berlin to meet with Reichsführer-SS Himmler to discuss the deployment of the “Charlemagne” Division. Himmler gave him assurances that the French volunteers would be sent to a front where they would not come against their fellow Frenchmen. He also promised that the men of the “Charlemagne” could fight under the French flag and could continue to practice their religion. Other promises were made concerning the future sovereignty of French territory.

To the Pomeranian Front

At the beginning of February 1945, the “Charlemagne” Division left Wildflecken for the Eastern Front. 10 to 12 trains were needed to transport the entire French SS formation. Stubaf. Raybaud had some arguments with the quartermaster who failed to issue enough equipment to his men. Some of the soldiers were forced to go to the front without having even received a steel helmet. SS Regiment 58 was given some Italian camouflage jackets, but these were inadequate for the cold of winter. Stubaf. Raybaud’s HQ staff received three automobiles but only one of them was functioning.

One of the two trains assigned to 58th SS Regiment was bombed en route to Pomerania and suffered some losses, but many of the other divisional trains were strafed by Russian planes and in some of them the losses were quite high! On the way to the front, Stubaf. Raybaud was forced to punish some of his officers and men who had shown disrespect for military discipline. The training period had been too short and some of the men lacked proper military habits. Many of the men from the “Milice” who had fought the ‘Resistance’ had adopted the ways of their enemies so that they still behaved like they were in a partisan unit.

The French SS men did not travel with a lot of equipment since they were supposed to pick up their supplies, heavy weapons and vehicles at a military depot in Hammerstein. It was the German habit to set up such depots close to the frontlines and equip new units as they arrived. This technique would prove catastrophic for the “Charlemagne” Division.

When the decision had been made to send the Frenchmen to the Hammerstein camp for equipping, the front had still been solid. But just as the “Charlemagne” trains reached the stations near Hammerstein, the Russians launched a major offensive. So the new soldiers, poorly armed though they were, had to be rushed into action against a far superior Soviet force. In its first frontline combat assignment, “Charlemagne” Division found itself facing some 4 Red infantry division and 2 tank brigades!

57th SS Regiment had no heavy weapons or radio equipment; the divisional recce unit was supplied only with bicycles and had no motorcycles; and “Charlemagne’s” artillery detachment was still in Bohemia-Moravia and it was impossible to bring it rapidly up to the front. Later on, Stubaf. Raybaud compared this time to his experience in France in June 1940. Then, as an officer in the 40th “Division de Chasseurs,” he had fought under the same conditions on the Somme. Then they had opposed the German divisions without artillery, tanks or airplanes. But in 1940 there was no snow and the French soldiers fought and died on their own ground. Now in Pomerania, in a land of foreigners, they had to fight in winter against other foreigners.

In their first action, French SS men went after Red Army tanks with Panzerfaust. In a violent battle the brave French soldiers managed to destroy about 50 enemy tanks in close combat. This was impressive enough to earn a special mention for the “Charlemagne” Division in the official communique of the 2nd German Army. Afterwards a rumour circulated that the German High Command had deliberately sent the French formation to an exposed spot to see it destroyed for political rea-sons. This was a falsehood; indeed Brigadeführer Krukenberg and the High Command had a very favourable attitude towards the Frenchmen. It was only fate and the unfortunate German technique of assembling fighting units so near to the frontlines, that were to blame.

Battles in Baerenwald and Baerenhuette

On the morning of 24 February 1945, the French volunteers heard that the frontlines held by Latvian SS men (from 15th Latvian SS Division) to the east of Hammerstein had been blown away by the attack of 3 Russian divisions. Stubaf. Ray- baud’s men disembarked from their trains in the village of Baerenhuette. The first group consisted of the regimental staff, the I. Battalion and a company of infantry guns (light artillery).

As night fell, at 1700 hours, the little unit faced to the east. At that moment, II Battalion/Regiment 58 came up and relieved I. /58 which was sent to the village of Baerenwald to reinforce the 57th SS Regiment.

At 0400 hours on 25 February, Stubaf. Raybaud woke up to the sound of violent fighting about 3 kilometers to the east. He received orders from “Charlemagne” staff to detach his 6th Company and send it to the north of Baerenhuette to block off a possible route of advance for the Russians. Raybaud was opposed to the order since it had little chance for success and only further depleted the strength of the weak French forces. No one could find any maps of the area at the regimental staff, so Raybuad sketched out a map himself and gave it to 6th Company’s commander, Ostuf. “S.M.” Not only were the French volunteers underequipped, but the men of the regimental staff were so incompetent that even this menial task fell to the regimental commander! Ostuf. “S.M.” and his men started off on the suicide mission and just after leaving lost all radio contact with the regiment due to poor radio liaison work.

Soon after, Stubaf. Raybaud went to Baerenwald to contact the commander of the 57th SS Regiment, Hauptsturmführer de Bourmont. He found him 500 meters west of the village. His men were in close combat with the Russians and they fought well but they had lost contact with I./58, under the command of Hstuf. Monneuse, which had come up the day before. After Baerenwald fell to the Russians, the 57th SS Regiment retreated to join the men of the 58th SS Regiment near Baerenhuette. The Russians were not in any hurry to attack the village; they preferred to try and encircle it.

At 2200 hours, the French SS men received the orders to retreat. As there was no motorized transport, all of the ammunition caches had to be destroyed. Each man received a Panzerfaust. The infantry guns which could not be towed were destroyed. The “march column” (consisting of men on foot and horses) withdrew, making a lot of noise but the Russians did not attack them. The losses were so high on their side that they possibly believed the French SS to be better equipped than they really were.

At around 1200 hours on 26 February, the men of “Charlemagne” arrived in Neustettin. For the last time in the Pomerania campaign they received supplies, but their German quartermaster had already gone on to Kolberg! About three-quarters of the division’s survivors spent the night together in one large barracks. This was somewhat dangerous if the enemy attacked, but fortunately all remained quiet.

To Koerlin

At 0800 hours on 27 February, “Charlemagne” was ordered to Belgard. In the course of the troop movements the Russians drew nearer to Neustettin and they slowly cut the road between that city and Belgard, but only the French SS rear-guard saw any fighting with the enemy. There was only one serious incident: at the village of Baerwalde, the column was strafed and lightly bombed by the Russian planes. The losses were high! If the Soviet troops had decided to attack the harassed men, they could cut them to pieces. During the night, a “rest” period was given to the French SS men. The men were allowed to stop for one hour! But it was in a cold wind under a snowy rain. On 28 February, at about 1200 hours, the tired soldiers were finally allowed to stop in a wooded area to the south of Belgard.

Nevertheless, Brigfhr. Krukenberg gave Stubaf. Raybaud the order to build a “March Regiment” (ad hoc regiment) from his 58th SS Regiment and the remnants of the 57th SS Regiment. The job had to be done in 3 hours! The Sturmbannführer remarked that such a job in peacetime or elsewhere (not on the frontlines) required around 2 days. After registering his objection with Krukenberg, Raybaud was given a delay of 10 hours.

Quickly, Stubaf. Raybaud organized his new unit; by the end of the day, 3 new battalions had been formed:

I. Battalion under the command of Ostuf. Fernet from the 57th SS Regiment.

II. Battalion under the command of Hstuf. Bassompierre from the division staff.

III. Battalion under Hstuf. de Bourmont, consisting of elements that were of dubious fighting value; survivors from badly depleted infantry companies, etc.

The men themselves were too weary to be of much help during the reformation process. During the night, “Charlemagne” moved on to Koerlin. The French SS men were given the job of protecting the vital road linking Koerlin to Stettin. Stubaf. Ray-baud was appointed “battle commandant” of Koerlin. The units of the “March Regiment” were met on arrival and directed to the right positions. [Editor’s note: The defences of Koerlin had been laid out somewhat in advance by Standartenführer Zimmerman, an engineering officer on the “Charlemagne” staff, and an ad hoc construction battalion consisting of French volunteers from dispersed units].

Because of the proximity of the Persante River, the city of Koerlin was planned to be a natural strongpoint — a fortress which could momentarily stop the enemy drive. The “March Regiment’s” staff came into the town with the rear-guard. The new “battle commandant” was disturbed by the apathy of his officers and to improve their functioning, he decided to dismiss his chief-of-staff and replace him with Hstuf. de Perricot, a veteran of the 1st World War. Some other soldiers and a German company joined the Frenchmen to help reinforce the defences of Koerlin. Communications were very bad because the telephone lines were often cut by saboteurs (i.e. Russian infiltrators).

At 1300 hours on 3 March 1945, the first Russian combat units were sighted. The bridges across the river were mined and the German engineers who wanted to evacuate the area, decided to blow them. Upon hearing that, the “battle commandant” went out to prevent them from doing so; chiefly because a French company was still on the other side of the Persante. It was at this moment that an enemy force appeared and opened fire and Stubaf. Raybaud was badly wounded in the leg. He was quickly evacuated to the rear in an ambulance and Hstuf. de Perricot took command.

Koerlin was eventually encircled by the enemy, and the French SS were forced to breakout in small groups. Only one such group made it to the safety of the German Baltic ports. The main body of the “Charlemagne” led by Oberführer Paud tried to escape to safety under the cover of fog but was caught in a bloody ambush when the fog suddenly lifted. Paud and many of his men were killed. Another battalion, led by Hstuf. Basompierre, spent several days wandering through the thick forests before being forced to surrender.

Ostubaf. Raybaud later had his leg amputated. After the war he was tried for being an ex-member of the “Milice.” He was nearly assasinated in prison but escaped death to be released some years later. He lives today in southern France where he was often visited by Brigadeführer Krukenberg, who held him in very high regard. Krukenberg died in 1980 at the age of 90.

After Koerlin, the survivors of “Charlemagne” were sent to the north of Berlin to be reorganized. When Krukenberg was called to Berlin to take command of the 11th SS Division “Nordland,” he asked for volunteers from the French SS to join him in the last battle for the German capital. Krukenberg noted that about 90 of them decided to join him, although the exact number of French volunteers who took part in the Battle of Berlin is still not known. Hstuf. Fernet who commanded the French SS in Berlin, reported in his memoirs that he had 4 companies of about 80 men each at his command or around 320 in total. But to Krukenberg the exact number was not important, as he remarked after the war: “90 or 300 men were the same. It was a symbol and it is senseless to evaluate a symbol.” Fernet, the commander of the French SS in Berlin was one of the “pure SS” and he was recommended for the Knight’s Cross decoration, but like another French volunteer and many Germans, the documentation for the reward either never survived the war or has yet to be found.

Raybaud only learned in 1970 that after Koerlin he had been promoted to Oberstrumbannführer and decorated with the Iron Cross, 1st Class. Given the chaos in Pomerania the news had never gotten through at the time!

***

“Charlemagne” Division shield.

Hitler and the Third Reich

by Anthony M. Ludovici
The English Review 63, 1936, pp. 35–41, 147–153, 231–239

The present temper of the German people, unlike that of their kinsmen before the Great War or under the Republic, is also unlike anything that Europe has witnessed probably since the Middle Ages.

The visitor to their country who fails to grasp this fact, like the stay-at-home Englishman whose Press does not enable him to appreciate it, misses the most fundamental feature in the whole of Nazi Germany.

For something akin to a new religious zeal has spread throughout the land, making the people wistful, but strangely light-hearted and confident in their earnestness. It is as if they had been not only raised from the dust, but also shown a star or ball of fire which will lead them to the fulfilment of their destiny.

It was to be expected that a great proud nation, broken and humiliated, would respond with turbulent gratitude to anyone who helped her to recover her self-esteem and face the world once more without shame. But those who are inclined to see only thankful exultation over rescued vanity in the present mood of the German people would sadly misunderstand and therefore underrate what has happened. For in Germany today there is none of the truculence of a greedily recovered self-confidence, none of the self-complacency of a people basking in a light which their sense of superiority claims. On the contrary, everything is reserved, serene, almost reticent, as if beneath the inexpressible joy that everyone feels there stirred the constantly sobering reflection that the defeat, the humiliation and the shame of yesterday was a judgment, a penance for the mistakes of the older generation.

The Fuehrer never loses an opportunity of reminding them of this. But it is a thought that must form spontaneously in most of their minds, because their behaviour, even towards strangers and foreigners, bears the stamp of it. They appear to have reached a level of self-respect from which they look down with anxious dread upon any impulse, word, or action which might bear an a-social or negative interpretation. Petty deeds of mutual strife, hostility or exploitation, are naturally scorned as infra-dignitatem. Again and again the visitor is impressed by the scrupulous honesty, consideration, patience, and willingness of menials, public servants and the rank and file of government employees. I could mention scores of instances of this. The tone of the country seems to be set by the general consciousness that a great common good is being served, and that those who depart too conspicuously from the example of impersonal effort set by the Fuehrer may wreck his prodigious scheme. Thus a mood prevails which makes certain things – mean, ill-natured thoughts and actions – appear unworthy of a great nation stirred and united by a lofty purpose.

„Not individual gain, but the common good!“ This can be read on almost every hoarding. And it is no empty phrase. It genuinely inspires the mass of the people, and makes for a wholesome reluctance to indulge in ill-informed criticism and fault-finding, while the gigantic work of reconstruction is in progress. Indeed, the Fuehrer himself is the very last to claim infallibility in his function, and with a wisdom surely exceptional in history repeatedly takes the people into his confidence to remind them that, if he is to act with courage and a cheerful readiness to shoulder responsibilities, they must allow him occasionally to make mistakes.

The last great movement of anything like the same importance as National Socialism was the Reformation. With his teaching, the fire he put into it, and the music and song he used so skilfully to carry it into the hearts of the people, Luther swept the country. But he divided Germany and left it divided. Even the united Empire created by Bismarck, although it integrated a congeries of petty states whose rulers had often been dominated by mutual jealousies, left Germany in the grip of parties whose rivalries proved even more dangerous and disintegrating.

The Nazi movement, however, has united the country as no country has been united since the Renaissance. It has not merely destroyed the barriers between the states, it has obliterated the demarcations of factions. There are no parties today in Germany. Nor should there be in any so-called „nation“.

If the people naturally look up to their leader more as a saviour than a statesman, more as a Heaven-sent prophet than a politician, if at the loudspeakers fixed to almost every pillar and post in the land, they hang on his words and his voice and are ready to accept and do his bidding, and if to us in strife-ridden England they appear to be standardised, „conditioned“ on a scale no free Briton would tolerate, let us in this country remember two important aspects of this state of affairs:
The first is that over here we cannot pretend to be able to fathom the depths of the humiliation they suffered after the Great War and therefore cannot appreciate the extent of their devotion to their rescuer.

The second is that we, too, in this country are standardised and „conditioned“ on a vast and alarming scale. But whereas in Germany the standardising and conditioning powers are responsible and ready to answer for the effects they produce, over here these powers are wholly irresponsible and, as things are, could not by any conceivable means be made to answer for what their untrammelled use of publicity enables them to effect in the moulding of so-called „public-opinion“.

Herr von Ribbentrop assured me that if to-morrow the Fuehrer were to ask the German people to do without sheets on the beds, they would cheerfully accede to his request and, to a family, give up this form of comfort.

There seems to me not the slightest doubt that this is true. But before we call such a request tyranny, and the hearty response to it slavery, let us be quite sure that we understand the amount of mutual confidence, affection and respect it implies.
When I was asked by a prominent member of the government, a man who, in his day, had ruled over one of the smaller nominally autonomous States of the old Empire, to sum up in a line how the Germany of the Third Reich impressed me, I replied that I could think of nothing like it in recent history and could compare it only to what I imagined western Europe must have been when our great Gothic cathedrals were being built.

Nor is there anything factitious or perfunctory in the enthusiasm with which the people acclaim and welcome the enigmatical figure who has contrived to strike this deep religious note in their hearts. I witnessed two public appearances of the Fuehrer. I saw him drive into a vast stadium at half-past eight in the morning to address 80,000 children of the Hitler Youth Movement and a few thousand adults; and, an hour or two later, I saw him arrive at the Lustgarten in the centre of Berlin to address a vast assembly of working men and specially invited guests of both sexes.

On both occasions something more than ordinary enthusiasm was displayed and no visitor required to understand the language in order to feel the magic of the moment.

Long before the actual appearance of the smart black touring car bearing the Leader, the ringing cheers of the populace could be heard in the distance drawing gradually nearer and nearer, until, when the car entered the arena, the whole gathering of thousands took up the cry and, standing with right arms raised, shook the May morning with their greetings.

Sieg!“ (Victory) he cried.

Heil Hitler!“ the throng roared in return.

Sieg!“ he cried again.

Heil Hitler!“ came the response once more.

Sieg!“ he cried for the third and last time.

Heil Hitler!“ was thundered back by 100,000 voices.

No sense of humour! – No! But we should be thankful that there are still occasions, even in modern England, when a sense of humour would be thought out of place. We still see no humour in the death of a beloved relative or in a broken heart, or a lost love. And is not possible for the degree of passion behind the love for a relative or a betrothed to be equalled by the love for a figure which stands for the salvation of a people’s native land, their pride and their hopes?

I certainly saw no sign of a sense of humour in the reception given to the Fuehrer on these two occasions. But I witnessed instead something bordering on the magic, something which, although beyond reason, was anything but madness.
I saw bent old men and women who must have known Bismarck, the Kaiser William I, and the glorious early seventies of last century, and I saw crowds of educated and uneducated middle-aged people, young men and women and adolescents, thousands of whom could never have seen the days of the Empire. But one and all displayed the same passionate affection of children in the presence of the Fuehrer, and to watch them was to learn what miracles can still be wrought with the ultra-civilised and often effete populations of modern Europe if only they are given a lofty purpose.
This is surely the secret of the perpetual hold religions have on men, and it explains Adolf Hitler’s magic influence. To exhort men to commercial and industrial prosperity is not enough. To stimulate them to make good in individual enterprise, in profit-making, in self-help, ultimately leaves the best elements of the nation cold – not merely cold, but fractious, restless, mutually negative and given to petty criticism and fault-finding. In fact, it creates the populace which is typical of modern democratic politics, and makes possible every kind of large-scale fraud, from a general election to the vast advertisement hoardings of a city like London.

The religious appeal, however, by giving men a higher, impersonal purpose, sets humanity at one stroke above the market-place, above considerations of merely individual gain, with all that these mean in internecine and suicidal struggle. And to have given his nation such a purpose, to have persuaded them that such a purpose can be worthwhile, is the secret of the Fuehrer’s magic. To my mind, this constitutes his chief importance to the German nation.

It is perhaps a pure coincidence that this man who, according to his own admission, moves and acts in state affairs with the somnambulistic certainty (nachtwandlerische Sicherheit) of a sleep-walker – that is to say, whose most important decisions spring from the mysterious strata of the Unconscious – should have chosen for the badge of his party and his movement the ancient mystic sign known as the Gammadion, Fylfot or Swastika. But when we bear in mind that this very badge was once the symbol of a mysterious cult, and has for countless ages stood as the sign of a particularly instinctive and deep-seated form of worship, the choice of the symbol seems particularly apt. For the fact that Germany is to-day stirred by a purpose super-personal and therefore religious, is beyond question.

Whether the conspicuous diminution in crime all over the country is to be ascribed to this religious mood, I cannot pretend to judge. If, however, I throw my mind back, as I like to do, to the days in western Europe when our great cathedrals were springing up in almost every large town, I imagine that they, too, must have been times of a low incidence of crime. For it is impossible to believe that all that anonymous, impersonal work, which must in millions of cases have offered no hope of being completed before those engaged upon it died, could have been performed in any mood which promoted the negativism of crime.

When, therefore, we learn from Liebermann von Sonnenberg, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the German government, that since 1932, crime in Germany has declined 50 per cent., and in some districts actually as much as 60 per cent., and that in all Prussian towns of over 50,000 inhabitants murders have declined 32 per cent., robberies by violence 63 per cent. and burglaries 52 per cent., it ought not to surprise us.

To suppose that, in such a mood and with such impersonal strivings, the German nation can now entertain purely predatory and venal aims would be wholly to misunderstand the feat Adolf Hitler has performed, and the metamorphosis his magic has effected.

He has effected this transformation on a foundation of repentance, on the constant reminder that Germany’s defeat and humiliation were a judgment and a penalty. Those who have been chastened by his appeal, and they represent over 90 per cent. of the German nation, cannot therefore be insincere in their desire for a relationship of peace and friendship with their neighbours and particularly with England.

This is not to say, however, that peace and friendship do not impose certain duties of mutual consideration on the parties concerned. But it struck me that it is only to that feeling of duty, and not to ideals of force and violence, that modern Germans now look with hope for the redress of their wrongs and the relief of their domestic difficulties.
Thus the greatest of the Fuehrer’s reforms and most creative of his innovations, as I hope to show, have aimed at construction and development at home. And if, in this work, Hitler and his advisers have in the last three years performed miracles, about which we in this country hear little, and appear to care less, it is to the rigorous press-censorship now prevailing over here that we must ascribe both our ignorance and indifference.

It is difficult to give an adequate impression of the enormous assistance afforded to the Fuehrer’s various schemes of construction by the spirit he has contrived to stimulate in the German people.

In a country uninspired by his personal leadership, many of his reforms, particularly those deriving from his biological revaluation and his wise attitude towards women, manual labour and agriculture, would undoubtedly have provoked the likeliest opposition. And if so many of his fundamental innovations have passed smoothly into the everyday life of the people to transform their sentiment and outlook, he has to thank the religious mood with which he first infected his nation.
Nowhere, however, has the change of point of view and life-habits been more conspicuously displayed than in the movement which led to the so-called „Labour“ camps, of which there are now 1,300 for men alone all over Germany.
Designed, on the cultural side, to reduce class cleavage, to whittle down the marked difference of esteem in which manual and mental work are held throughout Western civilization, and to promote health and manliness in all classes, these Labour Camps are, economically, one of the greatest assets of the new régime. For by providing the means of concentrating unpaid labour at all these points in the land where it is most needed, either in order to develop or reclaim existing wastes, or to help newly settled urbanites to make good as farmers, market-gardeners, fruit-growers, etc., it has given an impetus to agricultural development which, without it, would have been quite unrealisable.

It is not generally appreciated in England that the problems in the sphere of agriculture alone which the Fuehrer had to face, and which had actually been studied by him and his advisers before his Party came into power, were manifold and complicated.

The Treaty of Versailles deprived Germany of 9.5 per cent of her people and over 13 per cent of her area. Thus the ratio of population to territory was in any case less favourable than it had been before the war. Over and above this, however, the land lost on her eastern and western frontiers was of a very high grade, and therefore made the total decrease of her agricultural area more than it seemed – i.e., nearer 30 per cent than 13 per cent in actual value.

In addition, about one million of her nationals returned to the Reich from ceded territories, and, owing to the increasing use and perfection of labour-saving machinery, ever larger numbers of industrial workers were being turned out of work every year. So that, failing a wise and drastic policy calculated to improve the state of agriculture and provide fresh employment for the workless (numbering 6,000,000 before 1933), it seemed as if disaster must soon overtake the country.
Two things were clear – thousands of recently urbanized families must at all costs be restored to the land, and the arable areas of the Reich must be increased.
A „Back-to-the-land“ movement was therefore immediately inaugurated on a grand scale, while under the slogan that Germany, if she chose, could conquer a whole new province for herself within her own borders, another movement was started to improve the quality and yield of existing agricultural areas, to reclaim millions of acres of existing marsh, heath and moor-land in various parts of the country, and shoals and flats along the North Sea coast, to regulate the course of small rivers, to plant and grub, and to transform waste woodland into profitable forests.

In connexion with the first movement an administration known as the Reichstelle für die Auswahl deutscher Bauernsiedler, was soon set up for selecting desirable people for settlement in rural districts as farmers, farm labourers and peasants, which, working on the lines of the new biological revaluation, granted permits, land and sometimes credits, only to the best people from the standpoint of descent, health and capacity.

Thus favour is invariably shown to:–

(a) Men who in their family line and blood have long had some close relationship to the soil and been lately separated from it – for instance, farmers who have been recently uprooted or lost their farms through no fault of their own.

(b) Men who have large families. (Only men over 25 and married are considered.)

(c) Men who served in the late war, or who are known to have served in the S.A. (Hitler’s Sturmableitung) or the S.S. (the biological cream of the S.A.).

(d) Men who have served in the Reichswehr (the post-war German army).

(e) Finally, rural labourers whom adverse conditions have driven from the soil.
I have not the statistics for 1935 at hand; but in 1934 the Office for Selecting German Settlers on the Land received 15,948 applications of which 11,094 were accepted and provided for; and since the inauguration of the movement (not reckoning 1935) 67,000 new farmsteads have been established, covering about 1,827,800 acres. Altogether, up to the end of 1934, about 2,964,000 acres had been secured for settlement purposes.
The Government reckons that it takes about five years for these newly settled farmers and peasants to make good, and during their first years of endeavour, every kind of assistance is given them provided they display the right spirit and energy.
Now in the work of reclaiming the soil for the reception of these new agricultural workers, and in the task of helping them to make good, the Reich Labour Service finds its principal functions; and, apart from the cultural advantages the camps secure for the whole male population, as described above, it is in these principal functions that they constitute one of the greatest assets of the new régime.

Briefly stated, the conditions of the service are these:–

Every young German must enter the Labour Service between the end of his seventeenth and the end of his twenty-fifth year; he is enrolled only after a thorough physical examination and has to serve for six months, after which his year’s military service begins.

Life in the camps is divided between manual labour with spade and hoe, in which all must take part, strenuous drilling exercises, and periods of leisure given to reading and the study of contemporary events and problems. The day starts at 5 a.m. in the summer and 6 a.m. in the winter, and ends at 10 p.m. – the time after supper (7 p.m.) and short intervals during the day being devoted to rest and leisurely pursuits.
Each camp consists of 152 men, and there are at present about 1,300 camps for men in Germany. Thus, year in year out, the country can command the work of 200,000 young men whose labour is to all extents and purposes unpaid. Actually, they do receive about 3d. a day in pocket money.

A similar organisation exists for German girls. But, so far, the service has not been made compulsory. Nevertheless, such is the impersonal spirit prevailing in Germany to-day that, on the present voluntary basis, these Reich Labour Service girls have come forward in sufficient numbers from all classes of society to form 500 camps which, like those of the men, provide unpaid labour devoted to assisting the newly settled peasants and farmers all over the land.

As to what these men’s labour camps have done, let it suffice to say that, out of an area of 15,437 square miles (about half the size of Portugal) of swamp land, half has already been reclaimed for agricultural purposes; hundreds of thousands of acres of waste land and waste woodland, of no use to the peasants, have already been transformed into profitable forests; and drainage and irrigation, now being carried out, is expected to double the value of more than 46,312 square miles of existing agricultural land of poor quality.

It is, in fact, reckoned that the net annual proceeds derived from the work done by the Labour Service organisation have already exceeded 10 per cent. of the cost of the organisation. But the full value of what they are now creating in the form of new agricultural areas, new farmsteads and a new peasant population will, of course, not be realized for perhaps a generation or two.

I visited several of these men’s camps in the Havelländische Luch and questioned men whom I saw at work. As I had been led to expect, there were among them representatives of every class of the community, and they all appeared to be enjoying their labours and flourishing under the discipline of the camps. They were young enough to relish the hard work and the rough life as an adventure, and they all looked healthy enough to thrive under Spartan conditions.

Their camp officers who, without exception, attracted attention by their unusually fine physique and manly bearing, are men specially picked from the standpoint of psycho-physical standards. They do not separate from their men at meals or during the hours of leisure, as Army and Navy officers do, but have to live every moment of their waking hours with them, setting them an example of good manners, correct speech, and a cultured outlook.

In the women’s camps the girls are subjected to much the same camp discipline, but their work is of course different. They may, if called upon, help the newly settled farmers and peasants in light work in the fields, but their principal function is to give the rural families help in the home as unpaid domestic servants, dairymaids, nursemaids, etc. In this way, the newly settled farmers who are trying to make good, are substantially assisted at no cost to themselves, and are often able to have the more skilled work of their wives in the fields, while the voluntary Reich-Service workers look after the home and the children and do the cooking, mending and washing.
Valuable by-products of both the girls’ and the men’s Labour Camps are, of course, the excellent discipline that all these young people have to undergo at a period in their lives when discipline is most salutary, the breaking down of class barriers by the mixing of the various social strata in the camps, and the benefit to all concerned derived from the closer acquaintance made by the children of middle and upper-class families with manual labour, its hardships, its advantages and its immense importance in the economy of the nation.

„Work ennobles!“ (Arbeit adelt!) – that is the device of this branch of the National Service. And, thanks to the right spirit and the right values, and in spite of a world that has too long worshipped only money and the successful stockbroker and financier, it somehow comes true. It can already be seen in the faces and manners of the people, and it is evidenced in every relationship of high and humble in the life of modern Germany.

Meanwhile, promoting and consolidating the „Back-to-the-land“ and „Reich-Labour-Service“ movements, laws have been passed which make it difficult, particularly for young rural women, to swell the throng of country folk who annually try to migrate to the large towns; and a very important series of laws – not based on abstract principles or theory, but rooted in peasant custom – which came into force in September, 1933, and are known as the Reichserbhofrecht (the Law relating to the Inheritance of Landed Property) now provide for the hard-working and capable peasant a security in his holding, which no usurious or other kinds of creditors can defeat (Paragraphs 37–39 of above law). The test appears to be not whether the creditor has a lien on the land, but (a) whether the present debtor has defaulted through any fault of his own, and (b) whether the peasant debtor is a capable, knowledgeable and diligent farmer and has shown that he can keep his land in a proper state. The general idea inspiring the whole measure is that land cannot and should not be treated as moveable property, to be bought and sold in the open market.

It is impossible in the space at my disposal to describe in detail what this law has done to secure the peasant landowner in this holding, to regulate the inheritance of land so as to keep it in the hands of worthy families, and generally to enhance the prestige of conscientious and painstaking husbandry; but anyone who wishes to study the law in detail can do so in the excellent handbook on the subject by Otto Baumecker (Handbuch des Gesamten Reichserbhofrechts) the third edition of which was published in Cologne in 1935.

Great as are the reforms discussed in my last article, and wonderful as is the tribute their success pays to the inspiration of the Fuehrer, they are, however, as nothing compared with his innovations in a far more difficult and pitfall-strewn field – the field of human biology.

Three influences – urbanisation, industrialism and the negative Socratic values which began to prevail with the spread of Protestantism, and happened to be favourable to the two former – have now, for almost two centuries, been inclining the people of Europe, and all countries like Europe, to set their faces ever more and more steadfastly against a biological attitude towards man. And this has resulted in the tendency of modern civilisation not only to neglect and despise the body but also to exalt as praiseworthy all those practices which favour the multiplication of biologically inferior human beings.

To deal with urbanisation first, it must be clear, even to those who are unfamiliar with the contempt in which boroughs and their inhabitants were held by the rural populations of the Middle Ages, that the city and town do not and cannot breed the healthiest, sturdiest and most active members of the community and cannot, therefore, cultivate a very fastidious taste in standards of human desirability. The kind of occupation open to the town-dweller – quite apart from the air he breathes and the food he tends to live on – neither selects nor is calculated to maintain the soundest of types. Moreover, by withdrawing the human being from a close touch with the realities of Nature’s work and laws, from the everyday and obvious lessons to be learnt by watching cultivated plants and animals grow, and observing the conditions essential to their prosperity, town life must in time foster a fantastic or unrealistic attitude to life and its problems, which of itself constitutes mental or intellectual unsoundness.

Over and above this, however, in towns and cities, the very roots of human life tend to wither. In the country there is always some way in which the child only just past toddlerdom can help in the general impersonal work of Nature, even if it is only to scare the sparrows from the ripening corn. Thus children are always welcome and quickly become a further asset to the house in which they are born. But in towns the child tends to become more and more a luxury, an undesired by-product of the sexual adaptation of its parents. The result is that an unnatural relationship begins to grow up between married couples, and women as a whole incline to neglect and despise maternal occupations. In fact, society reaches a condition known as Feminism, on the one hand, in which, as even the Feminist Havelock Ellis admits, „Motherhood is without dignity“ – indeed, how could it have dignity when children are unwanted? – and, on the other, a condition known as Pornocracy, in which the taste of the harlot, and the outlook of the harlot, necessarily tend to prevail.

Industrialisation, even under the most humane and solicitous factory laws and regulations, confirms and intensifies most of the worst influences of urbanisation. It cannot help so doing, because, in addition to offering the urban crowds unhealthy occupations, it has not reached that stage of enlightenment when it would necessarily regard it as a duty to protect the character and minds of the so-called proletariat from the besotting and degrading influence of mere machine-minding, or of performing, year in year out, unskilled, repetitive and often merely fragmentary tasks. Besides, the factory can be adequately served by types which would not have the stamina or endurance for heavy farm work, and this again exercises with the town a preferential selection in favour of unsoundness.

On its occupational side, therefore, it undermines the garnered qualities of a national constitution and character. It lives on the spiritual and physical capital of the people, without making a single contribution of value to either from one generation to another. Thus, it creates among a mass of physically deteriorated, uprooted and traditionless individuals, already removed from the instructive realities of life by their urban habits, a standardized type of mind and character, which is steadily becoming more and more helpless, passive, colourless and servile. It means that a race is being reared which in character, body and mind is hardly civilised.
Turning now to the third influence – that of Socratic values – which has made the two former influences possible, it is difficult for the modern man of Western Europe to appreciate the extent to which he has become saturated, „conditioned“, and disciplined both in body and mind by the values which tend to underrate and neglect body standards. If we have ceased to look with horror on a man or woman who, although under thirty, has false teeth, if we have ceased to demand an apology from people with foul breath, and if we imagine that human rubbish and human foulness can give us good laws, good poetry, good science and good art, it is wholly and exclusively due to Socrates and his influence.

His exclusive claim to notoriety is that, thanks to his own wretchedly poor physical endowments in the midst of a population of beauty-venerators, he found himself forced in self-defence to discover a dialectical method of excusing every kind of physical disreputability, degeneracy and putrescence.

He argued, after the manner of the fox who had lost his tail, that the beauty of the body is but a slight affair, and that man’s greatest achievement is to set a higher value on the beauty of the soul, and he declared to Glaucon, „If there be any merely bodily defect in another, we will be patient of it and love the same“.

„Merely bodily defect“! – These three words epitomise the whole savour and trend of Socratic teaching.

Thus radiant and flawless health is everywhere rare among human beings, and wherever Western civilisation has spread the minority of the sound are taxed out of existence and sacrificed in order to preserve, succour and pay honour to the unsound.
Now to set one’s face against this deeply implanted bias, to invite modern men, and particularly modern women, in the teeth of their morbid sentimentality, to change their attitude and to honour and look up to the sound, to protect the sound from extermination by the unsound, and to resist their being sacrificed for the latter – in fact, to assume towards humanity the very attitude which, to a farmer contemplating his animals and his crops, is a commonplace of good husbandry, is to-day one of the most difficult and precarious of undertakings, particularly for the head of a State.
In the lives of the people, Socratic values, by inculcating a contempt for bodily considerations, leads to all kinds of perverted tastes and unwise matings – marriage with cripples, with the hereditarily blind, with the hereditarily deaf and dumb, the diseased and malformed. Three popular works, such as Lytton’s Pilgrims of the Rhine, George Eliot’s Mill on the Floss and Charlotte Yonge’s Pillars of the House, in which diseased or crippled persons are solemnly held up as marriageable or as objects to be specially honoured (and there are hundreds of lesser English novels which do the same), could hardly have been written or read unless a culture had lost its sanity in mating.

Now the fact that Adolf Hitler, as soon as he seized the reins of Government at the beginning of 1933, did not hesitate to grapple with Socrates and, at least in Germany, to discredit him, is surely one of his most remarkable achievements.
True, his assault on urbanisation and industrialism would have been imperfect and abortive had he failed to attack the values based on Socratic teaching which enable both to flourish. But, apart from the measures he has framed to restore a healthy agricultural life to Germany and arrest the flight to the cities, his daring attack on the traditional „glory“ of fifth-century Athens should alone have sufficed ultimately to sweep unhealthy tastes and prejudices from his country.

For to-day the sound in health and mind are the honoured of the German nation and, as the guarantors of a desirable posterity, are granted many privileges. Although to us over here this cannot help seeming slightly odd, it is, of course, the most elementary wisdom.

Among the principal measures framed to secure a healthier generation, I would refer to the Law of July 14, 1933, to Prevent the Transmission of Hereditary Diseases. By means of this law it became possible through sterilisation to prevent men and women suffering from certain hereditary diseases specified in the law from having progeny. Such diseases are congenital feeble-mindedness, certain mental diseases such as schizophrenia and manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, blindness, deaf-mutism and severe malformations.

All cases are tried before a Eugenics Court, consisting of one judge assisted by two doctors, and their decisions are reached only after a thorough and conscientious inquiry into each case. In the report for the year 1934, published on July 3, 1935, we find that in all 84,525 petitions were filed in the 205 eugenics courts, i.e., about one case per 771 of the population. There were 42,903 males and 41,662 females[1]. Of this number, 64,449 or about 75 per cent. were heard before the courts, and sterilisation was ordered in 98.8 of the cases, i.e., 56,244 persons. In 3,692 cases (6.2 per cent.) the petitions were rejected, while in 4,563 the petition was either withdrawn or else referred to a superior Eugenics Court, of which twenty-six participated in the ultimate decisions.

Of 8,219 appeals taken against a court order for sterilisation, only 377 were allowed. In 438 cases, appeals were made against the rejection of sterilisation petitions ordered by the Eugenics Court of first instance. And of these, 299 heard before the end of 1934 ended in the granting of the petition in 179 cases, and the reversal of the decision of the first Court.

In regard to pregnant women, it has been decided that if a valid Court has ruled that sterilisation should take place, the pregnancy may be interrupted provided that this is done before the sixth month of pregnancy.

The importance of these measures will be appreciated, as Dr Burgdörfer points out, when it is remembered that according to the last census there were 2,000,000 sufferers from incurable disease, crippledom and insanity in the country. The cost of maintaining them was 1,000,000,000 Reichsmarks, or about £76,000,000 a year – a burden which is not only useless but also actively pernicious, seeing that under it the sound cannot have the number of desirable healthy children they might otherwise give the country. To continue suffering such a burden and allowing it to increase, as it inevitably would if it were not dealt with, amounts to sacrificing the sound for the unsound. And this only a nation that has forgotten the laws of good husbandry through generations of urbanisation could ever tolerate.

A further measure, known as the Law to Protect the Hereditary Health of the German People (October 18, 1935), provides for the refusal of marriage certificates to all applicants who fail to reach certain standards of health. Thus a marriage certificate must be refused (1) to all parties suffering from an infectious disease which may affect the other partner or the children of the marriage; (2) to all parties suffering from a mental disorder which would make it contrary to public policy for them to marry; and (3) to all parties affected with a hereditary disease within the scope of the law of July 14, 1933, described above.

If both of the parties to the proposed marriage are foreigners, or if the prospective husband is a foreigner, the law does not apply. But if a foreign woman wishes to marry a German citizen, she must subject herself to a medical examination and obtain her Ehetauglichkeitszeugnis – her certificate of fitness for marriage.

The law makes it compulsory for these certificates to be obtained from the local bureau of health, and all people contemplating marriage have to undergo a medical examination before they can obtain their certificates.

But these purely negative measures do not satisfy the present rulers of Germany, and, side by side with them, they have instituted positive measures, not merely for encouraging marriage and large families, but also and above all for giving such encouragement only to desirable and sound couples. Thus, the unhealthy and pornocratic tendency of town life is stigmatized, and honour is given where it is due, i.e., to those who are a guarantee of a desirable coming generation and who, as married couples, are fit to lead to lead normal lives as parents.

The first measure dealing with this policy, formed part (para. x) of the Law for the Reduction of Unemployment of June 1, 1933. It provided that all young couples who desired to marry, and who had not the means to do so, could obtain from the government a loan to the extent of 1,000 marks in order to help them set up a home. But other measures have since confirmed and amplified these provisions, as, for instance, those of July 1933, August 1933, and March 1934.

The conditions under which the loan is granted are, however, severe. The parties to the marriage contract are required to be of German blood, hereditarily sound, and free from any disease, infectious or otherwise, which would make their marriage incompatible with the best public interest.

From August 1933 to March 1935, 400,738 such loans were made, of an average of 600 marks apiece, and the statistics show not only a sudden increase in marriages throughout the Reich, but also – and this was one of the objects of the measure – a corresponding decline in unemployment, owing to the number of posts vacated by the girls concerned. The number of marriages encouraged under this law were far more numerous in the urban that in the rural districts, and rose to the level of 12.6 per thousand in towns of more than 100,000 inhabitants.

The loans carry no interest, but are repayable at the rate of 1 per cent. per month. Thus, a loan of 600 marks is repaid by 100 monthly instalments of 6 marks. If, however, children are born of the marriage, a quarter of the loan is remitted for each child, and the repayments are suspended for a year. Of the 400,738 marriages which took place under these conditions, 182,355 children were born by end of March 1935, and a large proportion of the recovery of the German birthrate may justly be ascribed to these measures.

But these are not the only measures adopted by the government to promote soundness and good health in the nation. From the Health Record books of the Hitler Jugend – the corps of young Germans constituting the Youth Movement in Germany – to the biological selection of the S.A. (Sturm-Abteilung) known as the S.S., all of whose members strike the onlooker by the splendour of their health, build and looks, no detail is lost sight of which can transvalue the Socratic values still latent in the people, and make them honour, seek and favour the sound in mind and body.
The S.S. men may be encountered in every walk of life, and before the stranger, familiar with the spectacle of widespread degeneration at home, has learnt to read the signs or symbols proclaiming their order, his attention is usually drawn to them by their exceptionally fine condition and bearing. Our chauffeur on one occasion happened to be a man of this type, whose biological rank was obviously high, and as I was then unaware of the significance of the various badges worn in present-day Germany, I commented to my host on the healthy manly appearance of his servant.
„He belongs to the S.S., the biological cream of the S.A.“, replied my host. And he proceeded to inform me that not only did the young man belong to highest biological class, but that his wife, too, when he took one, would require to be the same. In fact, no marriage certificate would be granted either to him or his fiancée unless she could satisfy the relevant authorities that she came up to his standard.

No sense of humour? – Lucky Germany!


[1] The total according to these figures should be 84,565 and not 84,525. But the fault lies with the original German report and not with the present extract from it.

Plebiscites in National-Socialist Germany

Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Plebiscites_in_National_Socialist_Germany

Adolf Hitler was not afraid to ask the opinion of the people. In national socialist Germany in case of important political decisions the administration asked the opinion of the people about the decision. On the plebiscites, usually over 90% of the people took part, and most of the voting people agreed with the politics of the national socialist administration. The ballot papers’ text was easily understandable, and one could vote either with yes or with no.

  1. 12 November 1933, Leaving the League of nations. Result: 95.1% yes.
  2. 19-th August 1934, After Hindenburg’s death the chancellor and the president of the German Imperium should be one person. Result: 89.9% yes.
  3. Saar-country, in German Saarland. 13-th of January, 1935, Saarland’s inhabitants 90.8%wanted to join Germany, 8.8% stand alone, 0.4% wanted to join France.
  4. 29-th March 1936, German military presence on the Rhine area, Result: 98.8% yes.
  5. April 10-th 1938 Unification with Austria, Result: Germany 99.01%, Austria 99.73%.
  6. December 2, 1938, Make elections of the Sudeta country, Result: 98.78% yes.

Ballot paper of leaving the league of nations

Gerhard Lauck: Joachim Peiper’s Final Struggle against Communism

Source: http://whiteresister.com/index.php/8-archives/77-gerhard-lauck-joachim-peiper-s-final-struggle-against-communism

Joachim Peiper was born on January 30th, 1915 as the son of an officer’s family in Berlin.

He belonged to the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. In 1938, he became the adjutant of Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler. But as the war started, he wanted to serve at the front line. He commanded the 10th SS Leibstandarte A.H. company in Poland, Holland, Belgium and in France.

In 1941 he fought in Russia with the 3rd Panzergrenadier battalion of the SS Panzergrenadier regiment 2. He replaces the 320th infantry division of General Postel, encircled in Kharkov.

On March 19th 1943 he takes Bielgorod. In September 1943 he is in Italy. In November of the same year he fights for the Reich in Jitomir and with the 1st army breaks through the encirclement at Kamenets Podolsk.

Until October 1944 he fought at the West Front. On December 16th 1944 – under the command of Sepp Dietrich’s 6th Panzer army – he is at the spearhead of the offensive in the Ardennes with his 1st SS Panzer division L.A.H.

He advanced to La Gleize near Stavelot. Cut off from the rest of the army, he was encircled. But he could escape with his men, on foot and in icy cold, leaving back all the war material. Always fighting under Sepp Dietrich’s command, he battled the Soviets until the end, at the west of the Danube near Vienna. The same way in the alps at St. Pollen and Krems where he and his men finally surrendered to the Americans. He made it to SS-Obersturmbannführer and bearer of the Knight’s Cross with Swords.

After Germany’s capitulation this flawless, noble-minded and incredibly brave soldier was imprisoned, beaten and humiliated. He was accused of having ordered the execution of American POWs at Baugnez near Malmedy during the offensive in the Ardennes: Caught by the Kampfgruppe J.P., the captured U.S. soldiers were taken to a meadow to wait there for their transport to the front line. Peiper left back some of his men as guards. He himself drove at the head of his tanks far in front of the following troops to Ligneuville. As most of the Kampfgruppe troops arrived in Baugnez, the troops remained there chatted with their comrades left behind. A Spähwagen had a breakdown and was repaired. Suddenly a soldier sitting on a tank startled and noticed that some of the American prisoners had made use of their inattentiveness and wanted to flee. But a shot fired from his handgun caused panic among the prisoners who were running away in all directions. Submachine guns were used and 21 Americans shot while fleeing.

After the capitulation the men of the 1st SS Panzer division were tracked down and taken to the camp Zuffenhausen. 400 were transferred to the prison of Schwäbisch Hall near Stuttgart. Peiper’s troops consisted of mostly very young soldiers. One was 16, two were 17, eleven were 18 and eight were 19 years old. 22 of the 72 convicts were thereby below the age of 20; all of them were tortured in order to force any confessions. Peiper was an example for his crew, and under his command the team made well. There was never any betrayal among his units. The men were taken to the KZ Dachau where 72 of the 74 accused were convicted at a show trial. One commited suicide, one was Alsatian and was handed over to a French court. 43 – among them Peiper, who was called to account for his men’s actions – were sentenced to death by hanging, 22 to life imprisonment, eight to 20, eleven to ten years of prison. The trial was later newly heard and the sentence to death was replaced by life imprisonment. After eleven years of custody, J. Peiper was released as the last of his comrades in December 1956.

In January 1957 he started to work for Porsche in Frankfurt. Syndicates demanded his dismissal. Afterwards he worked for VW in Stuttgart, but there he was dismissed as well because of leftist agitation. With this he realized that he could not remain any longer in Germany and moved with his family to France. During the offensive in 1940 he had become acquainted with the region around the Langres Plateau and already at that time he loved it as a beautiful and quiet place. He then helped a French POW, a German-friendly nationalist, who had to work in Reutlingen for some relatives of Peiper like a forced labor convict in a garage. But there was a regulation between France and Germany, enabling the release of two French POWs for every voluntary worker willing to work in Germany. On Peiper’s recommendation that man, Gauthier, was allowed to return to his family. He had not forgotten Peiper and as he had to leave Germany in 1957, it was Gauthier who helped him and sold him the watermill of Traves. That building was in bad condition and Peiper did not have the necessary financial means to restore the mill. SS-Obersturmbannführer Erwin Ketelhut has afterwards taken over the water mill and in 1960 Peiper made build a house in Spannplate, high up on the bank of the Saone, hidden by bushes, not to see from the streets and like a military fortification. He had lived there – despite threats and anonymous phone calls – quite peacefully for over sixteen years.

On July 11th 1976 he bought some wire for a kennel in a shop in Vesoul, the capitol of that department. The salesman was an Alsatian: Paul Cacheux, member of the communist party, recognized through his accent that he was German and asked him whether he had been in France during the war. Peiper paid with a check with his name and address on it. Paul Cacheux looked up Peiper’s name in the “brown list” where all wanted Germans were registered. He passed his data over to the Resistance. On June 22nd 1976 the French communist newspaper “L’Humanité” wrote: „What does this Nazi do in France?”. It was demanded to force Peiper to leave France. Flyers showing Peiper as a war criminal and Nazi were distributed to people in Traves. “Peiper, we’ll deliver you a 14 July!” was smeared on walls. July 14th is of course the French national holiday.

The morning of July 13th Peiper sent his wife, suffering from cancer, back to Germany. He himself did not want to leave his house because he expected it to be burned down. His neighbor Ketelhut had suggested to pass the night in the water mill but Peiper rejected that offer. He did not want Ketelhut staying with him either, since he would have shot any attackers. “No”, he said, “It’s been already killed enough.” Joachim Peiper waited on the veranda of his house from where he could observe the Saone river. Erwin Ketelhut had lent him his rifle. At 10:30 pm he heard a noise in the bushes and saw a dozen men climbing up the river bank. He shot in the air to intimidate the drunk intruders. She called him to come outside. He did that and opened the door in order to talk to them.

What happened afterwards can only be told by the culprits. Obersturmbannführer Joachim Peiper’s body was found charred and only one meter in size, he had no hands and feet. He died at about 1:00 am. The house was burned down, the ceiling broken in. What happened between 11:30 pm and 1:00 am? Was the Obersturmbannführer alive when he was mutilated? Was he still alive when he was burned? The culprits had poured gas on the floor, lit with a mixture of petrol and motor oil. Peiper lay in his bedroom, on the left side with his back to the wall, one arm bowed before his chest. Nothing had fallen upon him. He died by the immense heat. The body was not cremated but shrunken.

Erwin Ketelhut and the French having known and liked him shared the opinion that this knightly man, having defied so many dangers, should not have died this way. The murderers had driven with their car over a meadow to the river bank where two barges lay ready. With them they had crossed the Saone and afterwards had to climb up the steep bank through bushes. After the murder they ran the other way back over the meadows, in front of the house, to the street. The firemen searched the river for missing body parts. The French police’s investigation work took six months. The communists from Vesoul and the Resistance members were questioned. Nobody knew anything! Then the case was shelved. Nobody was ever arrested or punished! The area of Traves is not densely populated, there are only about ten inhabitants per square kilometer. Everybody knows everyone there and the people know everything about each other.

The culprits are known to the inhabitants, but the people say nothing. In the night from 13th to 14th July we have a protest vigil for Obersturmbannführer and bearer of the Knight’s Cross Joachim Peiper. The injustice made to him will not remain unpunished! With this cruel death Joachim Peiper has paid his last respects to his people and his homeland.

Gerhard Lauck (NSDAP/AO)

Rauschning’s Phony „Conversations with Hitler”: An Update

Historical News and Comment

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/2141/

By Mark Weber
Published: 1985-12-01

One of the most widely quoted sources of information about Hitler’s personality and secret intentions is the supposed memoir of Hermann Rauschning, the National Socialist President of the Danzig Senate in 1933-1934 who was ousted from the Hitler movement a short time later and then made a new life for himself as a professional anti-Nazi.

In the book known in German as Conversations with Hitler (Gespräche mit Hitler) and first published in the U.S. in 1940 as The Voice of Destruction, Rauschning presents page after page of what are purported to be Hitler’s most intimate views and plans for the future, allegedly based on dozens of private conversations between 1932 and 1934. After the war the memoir was introduced as Allied prosecution exhibit USSR-378 at the main Nuremberg „war crimes“ trial.

Among the damning quotations attributed to Hitler by Rauschning are these memorable statements:

We must be brutal. We must regain a clear conscience about brutality. Only then can we drive out the tenderness from our people… Do I propose to exterminate entire nationalities? Yes, it will add up to that… I naturally have the right to destroy millions of men of inferior races who increase like vermin… Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians. It is an honorable title.

Hitler is also supposed to have confided to Rauschning, an almost unknown provincial official, fantastic plans for a German world empire that would include Africa, South America, Mexico and, eventually, the United States.

Many prestigious historians, including Leon Poliakov, Gerhard Weinberg, Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest, Nora Levin and Robert Payne, used choice quotations from Rauschning’s memoir in their works of history. Poliakov, one of the most prominent Holocaust writers, specifically praised Rauschning for his „exceptional accuracy, while Levin, another widely-read Holocaust historian, called him „one of the most penetrating analysts of the Nazi period.“

But not everyone has been so credulous. Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel spent five years diligently investigating the memoir before announcing his findings in 1983 at a revisionist history conference in West Germany. The renowned Conversations with Hitler, he declared are a total fraud. The book has no value „except as a document of Allied war propaganda.“

Haenel was able to conclusively establish that Rausching’s claim to have met with Hitler „more than a hundred times is a lie. The two actually met only four times, and never alone. The words attributed to Hitler, he showed, were simply invented or lifted from many different sources, including writings by Juenger and Friedrich Nietzsche. An account of Hitler hearing voices, waking at night with convulsive shrieks and pointing in terror at an empty corner while shouting „There, there, in the corner!“ was taken from a short story by French writer Guy de Maupassant.

The phony memoir was designed to incite public opinion in democratic countries, especially in the United States, in favor of war against Germany. The project was the brainchild of the Hungarian-born journalist Emery Reves, who ran an influential anti-German press and propaganda agency in Paris during the 1930s. Haenel has also found evidence that a prominent British journalist named Henry Wickham-Steele helped to produce the memoir. Wickham-Steele was a right-hand man of Sir Robert Vansittart, perhaps the most vehemently anti-German figure in Britain.

A report about Haenel’s sensational findings appeared in the Fall 1983 issue of The Journal of Historical Review. More recently, West Germany’s most influential weekly periodicals, Die Zeit, and Der Spiegel (7 September 1985), have run lengthy articles about historical hoax. Der Spiegel concluded that Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler „are a falsification, an historical distortion from the first to the last page… Haenel not only proves the falsification, he also shows how the impressive surrogate was quickly compiled and which ingredients were mixed together.“

There are some valuable lessons to be learned from the story of this sordid hoax, which took more than 40 years to finally unmask: It shows that even the most brazen historical fraud can have a tremendous impact if it serves important interests, that it’s easier to invent a great historical lie than to expose one and finally, that everyone should be extremely wary of even the „authoritative“ portrayals of the emotionally-charged Hitler era.

A footnote: Readers interested in an authentic record of Hitler’s personality and private views should look into the fascinating and wide-ranging memoir of Otto Wagener, published in August 1985 by Yale University Press under the title Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant. Wagener was the first Chief of Staff of the SA („Stormtroopers“) and Director of the Economic-Political Department of the National Socialist Party. He spent hundreds of hours with Hitler between 1929 and 1932, many of them alone.

– Mark Weber

In Memoriam John Amery

Source: http://www.renegadetribune.com/memoriam-john-amery/

By Mike Walsh

in-memoriam-john-amery1

December 19, 1945, a 33-year old British born Spanish national was illegally hanged at London’s grim Victorian Wandsworth Prison. It was the end of a life but the beginning of a legend.

Had Amery, the son of a British government minister, served a prison sentence few would have heard of him. Posterity decided otherwise; here was the making of a British martyr whose name would one day surely grace boulevards and parks named in his honour.

Born March 14, 1912, John Amery was baptised in the crypt of the House of Commons and educated at Harrow. Like Eton the public school was favoured by the English elite. To keep their place in the class system’s pecking order England’s political and aristocratic cabal collaborated with Jewish oligarchs.

John Amery was having none of that. Turning his back on the hedonistic lifestyle of his class John Amery first went to France and then in 1936 onward to Spain. There the Englishman fought on the side of the Nationalists against Moscow-backed Republicans. Amery fought on the front-lines with distinction.

in-memoriam-john-amery2

In 1943, despairing of Britain’s war against the Democratic Reich, John Amery opted for service with Hitler’s Germany. One has to remember that in 1943 Britain had not experienced an elected government for eleven-years. Unlike Adolf Hitler, Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill was never elected to serve the country in that capacity.

From Germany John Amery broadcast regularly as did many Europeans. There was a common theme in all such broadcasts; the desperate need for peace between Germany and necessity to form an alliance against Bolshevik Occupied Russia. Whilst in Germany John Amery was pivotal in setting up the League of St. George. The League, after the Englishman’s departure for Italy, became the British Free Corps.

in-memoriam-john-amery3King Edward VIII reviewing an SS formation

By the outbreak of Britain’s alliance with the USSR it is estimated that at least 30 million Russians and Central European Orthodox Christians had been slaughtered, starved or worked to their death by the Jewish Bolsheviks. New York’s bowler-hatted Bolshevik bankers in 1917 had invested in the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II and government of Imperial Russia. The Bolshevik megacaust proceeded from the so-called ‘Russian Revolution’ now known as American-inspired regime change.

From 1922 America and Britain’s industrial corporations threw their industrial clout into the opportunities offered by the world’s largest slave population. Amery and his associates decided that they had no wish to live under race-traitors or to endure a hand-to-mouth existence in a Jewish-controlled world.

Following the defeat of the Axis powers John Amery was taken into custody. Transferred in irons to London the Englishman would have realised that his ‘trial’ was to be no different from the notorious Soviet show trials.

The martyr’s fate was sealed; all that was necessary before his ritual hanging was a little court theatre for the duped peoples of England. Standing in the dock and facing his accusers John Amery proudly accepted all eight charges levelled at him; his ‘trial’ lasted just eight-minutes.

Shortly after 9 a.m. on December 19, 1945, the condemned man took his final steps to the prison’s execution chamber. There the young man was pinioned, hooded and placed on the trapdoor. Albert Pierrepoint, Britain’s notorious executioner, pulled the apparatus lever.

When Pierrepoint retired he had taken the lives of 680 condemned prisoners, more than many of Stalin’s henchmen. Of those hanged Albert Pierrepoint executed over 200 German prisoners-of-war. The hangman described Amery as ‘the bravest man I ever met.’

Any hope that in doing so John Amery’s memory was sent to oblivion was a fond hope. John Amery is today far better recognised and honoured, certainly better remembered than any who betrayed him and sent him to the gallows.

in-memoriam-john-amery4

Clearly, Leo Amery, John’s father, was in no doubt as to his son’s nobility. It must have occurred to him that his son was far more deserving of the nobleman accolade than any of the parasites perched along the seating of England’s second chamber. Afterwards, his father wrote the condemned martyr’s epitaph.

EPITAPH TO JOHN AMERY

At end of wayward days he found a cause,
‘Twas not his country’s ~ only time can tell,
If that defiance of our ancient laws,
Was treason or foreknowledge. He sleeps well.

Sharing and PUBLISHING, Blogs etc. much appreciated. Break through media censorship.

Julius Evola’s Political Testament

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/1679/

julius-evola

By Nigel Jackson
Published: 2004-05-01

In 1950, Julius Evola wrote Orientations, a pamphlet for a number of his young political associates, intended as a compendium that would set down the most important core values of a traditional rightist group. This pamphlet then led to the writing of Evola’s main political book, Men Among the Ruins (1953).

Dr. H. T. Hansen, in his 100-page introduction to this first English translation of Evola’s work, explains that Men Among the Ruins was written in the hope of influencing Italian politics of the time, but was not successful in that regard. Despite that, it was reprinted several times in Italy and was Evola’s most commercially successful book.

Hansen’s claim that „it probably was and has remained the only ‘practical’ handbook for a truly traditional right wing“ may be an excessive claim. It is as much theoretical as practical; and an abundance of books of a traditional conservative bent have appeared in the same period, such as Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind[1] and Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics.[2]

Hansen states that Evola himself felt that Men Among the Ruins was a failure. At much the same time he also wrote a companion book, Riding the Tiger, in which he preached a gloomy doctrine of apoliteia (withdrawal from active politics). „Today there is no idea, no object, and no goal that is worth sacrificing one’s own true interest for,“ he declared.

Hansen, who rarely intrudes his own views in his brilliantly researched analysis of Evola’s life and intellectual career, finally lets loose a severe judgment about the impracticality of Men Among the Ruins:

„Evola’s Traditionalism cannot be used by modern political movements.“

According to Hansen, Evola’s teachings „are too aristocratic, too demanding, and too much directed against progress and modernity.“ In the 1930’s and early 1940’s Evola strove in vain to influence Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, which provided more „fertile ground“ than the postwar era.

„Traditionalists must hold on to ideas and principles, not institutions,“ Hansen adds. He suggests that Evola would probably have held that his Traditional doctrines should serve as centers of intelligence, around which groups might slowly form which in the future might be nuclei in a providential transformation of society.

In the 20th century Australian right-wing political movements have enjoyed little success and sometimes proved to be fiascoes. Senator George Hannan’s 1970’s National Liberal Party[3] never got off the ground. More recently, Graham Campbell’s Australia First[4] has sunk amidst a cruel media silence, while Pauline Hanson’s One Nation,[5] although enjoying a degree of media puffing and some electoral successes, never lost the unhappy image of a slightly tawdry political circus. Perhaps a study of Men Among the Ruins might help the Australian Right achieve something more fruitful in the future. This article is offered as a contribution to that end.

First we will look briefly at Evola’s life and the kind of person he was. Next we will survey his intellectual career, relying on Hansen’s substantial and succinct introduction. Finally we will study the 175-page text of Men Among the Ruins itself and consider how it might be practically applicable in the Australian political arena today.

Evola the Man

Baron Julius Evola was born into a family of the Sicilian gentry on 19th May 1898, about a year and a half after Prince Giuseppe di Lampedusa, author of the plangent historical novel The Leopard,[6] whose theme is the decay of the Sicilian aristocratic class.

He received a strict Catholic upbringing which he soon discarded. „His was not the spirituality of piety and mysticism,“ comments Joscelyn Godwin in a brief foreword, „but the aspiration to what he understood to be the highest calling of man: the identity of Self and Absolute.“

Evola also developed „an unconditional and militant antipathy toward everything bourgeois,“ Hansen tells us:

„The fact that he never married, never wanted children, never had a middle-class job, and broke off his engineering studies before the last exam in spite of his excellent record (so he would not be a Doctor or Professor) can be traced back to this sentiment.“

There was plainly an austerity in Evola’s make-up. It could be seen in his personal style of impeccable suits and monocle (reminiscent of the defiant wearing of dinner suit and bow tie in the Soviet Union amidst the „Red terror“ by another of his contemporaries, the novelist Mikhail Bulgakov). It can equally be noted in his extraordinary reticence about his upbringing and personal life, which are hardly mentioned even in his autobiography, and in his attitude to personal property (all his life he owned very little and even habitually gave away his books and paintings). It would be tempting to view him as a partly repressed personality with an unduly negative attitude to femininity; but there is evidence against this. For example, we learn from Hansen that, after the fall of Rome to the Allies in 1943, his mother kept their secret service operatives at bay while he made his escape. He evidently enjoyed good relations with her, despite having renounced Catholicism in his teens. Evola also wrote a whole book on Eros and the Mysteries of Love. Moreover, the second last chapter of Men Among the Ruins (The Problem of Births) shows that he did not have a puritanical attitude towards sexuality.

Evola seems to have been a knightly man with leanings towards the brahminic lifestyle. On March 12, 1945, he was seriously wounded during an air strike on Vienna and his spinal cord was damaged. He remained paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life. This disability was not allowed to curtail his dedication to Tradition and his prodigious literary career. He wrote twenty-five books (Men Among the Ruins being the ninth to appear in English), around three hundred long essays and over a thousand newspaper and magazine articles. He translated into Italian many notable works including Oswald Spengler’s Decline and Fall of the West,[7] the Taoist classic, the Tao Te Ching,[8] and René Guénon’s The Crisis of the Modern World.[9]

Evola also introduced many notable European writers to the Italian public, including Gabriel Marcel, Ernst Jünger and Gustav Meyrink. Close personal friends from youth onwards included comparative religion authority Mircea Eliade and Tibetologist Giuseppe Tucci. After spending a year and a half in hospital in Austria, Evola returned to Rome and thenceforth rarely left his apartment. He was arrested in 1951 on the preposterous charge of „glorification of Fascism,“ detained for six months, proved innocent and acquitted. His famous Autodifesa (self-defence testimony) is included as an appendix in Men Among the Ruins.

He chose to die standing upright (as much as he could), since he wished to emulate forebears like Roland of France. (It will be recalled that Zorba the Greek died in the same fashion in Nikos Kazantzakis’s novel.[10]) Plainly there was much that was heroic in Evola’s life; but was there also something of the quixotic?

Intellectual Career

Hansen points out that for Evola, from his mid-twenties onwards, the centre of all things was not man but rather the Transcendent, the eternal „One without a second.“ Evola was a Traditionalist in the sense made famous by Guénon, father of the „Perennialist“ school.[11] Everything had to be appraised from the standpoint of the principles which form the foundation of our world and remain forever the same – that is to say, Tradition.

Evola’s awareness of the vertical dimension of human existence was based on personal experience which gave him keys to the mysteries of self-transformation. As Guido Stucco noted in his translator’s preface to Evola’s masterwork, Revolt Against the Modern World (1995), Evola was not first and foremost a right-wing, reactionary political thinker, but an esoterist. His socio-political views sprang from his religious and metaphysical convictions. Evola upheld the primacy of Being (as did Martin Heidegger). For him there was an immortal nature as well as a mortal nature, a superior world of being as well as an inferior world of becoming.

Evola considered human beings to be fundamentally and inherently unequal, so that they do not have and should not have, nor should they enjoy, the same dignity and rights. Therefore a sociopolitical hierarchy is best suited to express the differentiation between them.

Evola tended to reject dialogue with the apostles of modernity as a waste of time. He favored self-questioning and the cultivation of one’s soul. Stucco viewed Evola’s whole oeuvre as a quest for, and as an exposition of, the means employed in Western and Eastern traditions to accomplish that noble task.

The titles of Evola’s other books available in English, but not yet mentioned, support this claim: The Doctrine of Awakening (analyzing Buddhism), The Yoga of Power (investigating Hinduism), The Hermetic Tradition, Introduction to Magic, The Mystery of the Grail and Meditation on the Peaks.

An apologetic tone appears periodically in Hansen’s introduction, denoting a strong conviction that he has to deal with a largely uncomprehending if not downright hostile readership. So, for example, he states that Evola’s mindset was formed in „a relatively recent intellectual climate that seems to belong to a whole other world in its incisive questioning of what we regard today as self-evident ‘humanism’: a different world whose utterances seem barely publishable today.“ However, perhaps modernity is only standing tall on feet of clay – as its well-known tendency to discourage and even suppress antithetical political and historical theses testifies.

Important early influences on Evola’s thought were the mediaeval Christian mystics Meister Eckhart and Jan van Ruysbroeck. Hansen includes pertinent quotations from Eckhart, whom Evola respected throughout his life:

„Being is God. […] God and existence are identical. Should I then be able to recognize God in an immediate way, then I must become he and he must become I, pure and simple […] so completely at one, that this he and this I are one and will become and be one. […] Coarse-natured people must simply believe this, but the enlightened must know it.“

Plainly this is equivalent to the Hindu doctrine tat twam asi, which proclaims the ultimate identity of the Self and the Divine Source.

A number of secular writers also influenced Evola in his youth. From Carlo Michelstaedler (1887-1910) he learned the vital importance of personal authenticity, of following „the path of conviction, which has no road-signs or directions that one can share, study or repeat,“ of not „surrendering to contentment with what has been given to one by others.“

From Otto Weininger (1880-1903), author of Sex and Character, Evola derived his sense of the importance of manliness, his attitude towards woman as the metaphysical and political opposite of man, his dislike of populist „Caesars“ and his hostility to the decadence of modernity.

Plato played an important role in arousing Evola’s antidemocratic views, as did Nietzsche, although Evola always cautioned against the hubris implicit in Nietzsche’s ignoring of transcendence.

Oswald Spengler alerted Evola to the fundamental decadence of modernity, despite its boasts about „progress“ and „the advances of science.“ From Spengler he learned that it is a sure sign of corruption of the body politic when the economy wins the upper hand. He agreed with Spengler’s analysis of the onslaught of money against the spiritual in Western culture: „Only high finance is completely free, completely unsusceptible to attack. Since 1789, the banks and thus the stock exchanges have come into their own as a power, feeding off the credit needs of an industry growing into monstrous proportions. Now they, and money, want to be the sole power in all civilizations.“

From The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon[12] (1841-1931) Evola absorbed a pessimistic attitude towards the masses, whose natural tendency is to follow strength rather than virtue. And from Johann Jakob Bachofen came the identification of the age of female rule with the age of earthbound, chthonic deities, against which Evola proposed the superiority of a solar, manly and Olympian rule. There is definitely error in Evola’s analysis here, as anyone who appreciates Robert Graves’ The White Goddess[13] and Starhawk’s The Spiral Dance[14] will agree. There is a Graeco-Roman bias in Evola which leaves inadequate room for the Celtic.

Evola was deeply influenced by texts of the non-dogmatic Eastern religions, including Buddhist Pali scriptures and the Hindu Bhagavad Gita.[15] From Taoism he derived his understanding of the nature of power. The Tao Te Ching tells how „the awakened one“ achieves self-fulfillment because he is selfless, and praises the superior man who „leads and yet does not lord it over“ his fellows.

Thus Evola differentiated power from mere brute force.

„Superiority does not rest on power, but power rests on superiority. […] The path of renunciation can be a condition for the way to the highest power. […] A true ruler has access to this higher quantity of being, a different quality of being, and imposes himself through his mere presence.“

Evola was twenty-four when Mussolini entered Rome at the invitation of King Victor Emmanuel III. He thus lived the years of his prime under Fascism and naturally had hopes of influencing it, correcting it and steering it into aristocratic channels.

In 1927 in his first political book, Imperialismo Pagano, he expressed concern at the direction Fascism was taking:

„Caught up in the struggles and worries of concrete politics, Fascism does not seem to be interested in creating a hierarchy in the higher sense, based on purely spiritual values and knowing only disdain for all pollutions due to ‘culture’ and modern intellectualism, so that the centre might again shift to a position that lies beyond secular and religious boundaries alike.“

His critique applied to Western nations generally:

„In the same way that a living body stays alive only when a soul is present to govern it, so every social organization not rooted in a spiritual reality is outward and transitory, unable to remain healthy and retain its identity in the struggle of the various forces; it is not really an organism, but more aptly something thrown together, an aggregate.

The true cause for the decline of the political idea in the West today is to be found in the fact that the spiritual values that once permeated the social order have been lost, without any successful efforts to put something better in their place. The problem has been lowered to the plane of economic, industrial, military, governmental, or even more sentimental factors, without considering that all this is nothing more than matter: necessary if you like, but never enough by itself, and unable to create a healthy and reasonable social order.“

Relying on Dante’s De Monarchia and other authorities, Evola saw a monarchy as the „natural gravitational and crystallizing point“ of the true Right:

„This ideal implies the affirmation not only of the concept and right of the nobility, but also of the monarchy. […] It must be renewed, strengthened, and dynamized as an organic, central, absolute function that embodies the might of power and the light of the spirit in a single being; then the monarchy is truly the act of a whole race, and at the same time the point that leads beyond all that is bound by blood and soil.

Only then is one justified to speak of an Imperium. When it is awakened into a glorious, holy, metaphysical reality, the pinnacle of a martially ordered political hierarchy, then the monarchy once again occupies the place and fulfils the function that it once had, before being usurped by the priestly caste.“

As Hansen observes, with this emphasis on a spiritual monarchy presiding over an imperial order, Evola stood in sharp contrast to the principle of the leaders of Fascism and National Socialism, both of whom derived their legitimacy, they claimed, from the people. Inevitably he remained without political influence on either movement.

He saw Fascism as „a degenerate child of Tradition.“ It appeared to him as „the last chance of the West.“ From his standpoint, the visible alternatives were much worse, explains Hansen.

„There were only liberalism paired with capitalism (‘Anything goes!’) and communism, both of which worshipped a world of machines and limitless materialism. […] Fascism at least strengthened the State and the hierarchical concept […] and praised honour, bravery and loyalty.“

Evola believed that it was Italy that had failed Fascism, rather than the other way around. The nation

„did not have enough men on the necessary plane of certain higher qualifications and symbols […], capable of further developing the positive possibilities that could have been contained in the system.“

Hansen explains how National Socialism came to have greater appeal to Evola, partly because of its concept of a State ruled by an Order, which he felt was embodied in the SS. Yet he strongly warned against the inadequate respect for the transcendent:

„National Socialism has forsworn the ancient, aristocratic tradition of the Empire. Being nothing but a semi-collectivist nationalism and equalizing in its centralism, it has not hesitated to destroy Germany’s time-honoured division into duchies, counties and cities that all enjoyed a measure of independence.“

An extract from a lecture he gave in Berlin in 1937 shows how Evola saw Hitler’s National Socialism as a caricature of a true conservative order:

„According to the Aryan primordial conception, the Reich is a metaphysical solar reality. The Nordic heritage is not semi-naturalistic, only conceivable on a blood-and-soil basis, but rather constitutes a cultural category, an original transcendent form of the spirit, of which the Nordic type, the Aryan race, and the general Indo-Germanic moral being are only outward manifestations.

Race is a basic attitude, a spiritual power, something primal and creative. […] This is the true level to which the motifs and symbols that the new Germany has called forth must be elevated if it really wants to stand at the forefront of the resistance and attack against the dark powers of world revolution.“

Hansen stalwartly presents and assesses Evola’s attitudes to race and to the Jewish question – intellectual minefields over which he steps delicately and honorably. He stresses that Evola’s position regarding race was a consequence of his worldview. Evola wrote:

„Our racial doctrine is determined by Tradition. Thus the traditional view of the human being is our foundation, according to which this being has a tripartite nature; that is, it consists of three principles, spirit, soul and body. […] Race is a deeply embedded force that reveals itself in the biological and morphological realm (as race of the body), the psychical (as race of the soul), as well as in the spiritual (as race of the spirit).“

And in 1928 he stated that races deteriorate when their spirits deteriorate.

„That is why for us the return to the race cannot be merely the return to the blood – especially in these twilight times in which almost irreversible mixtures have taken place. It must mean a return to the spirit, not in a totemistic sense but in an aristocratic sense, relating to the primordial seed of our ‘form’ and our culture.“

As Hansen remarks, Evola not only fought vehemently against a purely physical racism, but also understood the term ‘race’ differently from its general usage. His studies of Buddhist scriptures that continually mention the arya and understand the arya as „the noble“ affected his employment of the word „Aryan.“ The Sanscrit word arya has a fourfold meaning:

  1. spiritually, „the awakened ones“;
  2. aristocratically, membership of a higher caste;
  3. racially, as of the light-skinned Nordic conquerors. (Varna, caste, originally meant color.);
  4. stylistically, as of a crystalline clarity, lack of passionate emotion, ascetic manner, and detached attitude.

Hansen condemns some of Evola’s obsessions and utterances critical of Jewry, especially an appendix he wrote to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,[16] which demonstrated „sheer carelessness, a lack of serious research, and the reckless assimilation of prejudices that happened to coincide with his own views.“

On the other hand, Hansen points out that Evola’s writings never spoke out against orthodox, religious Judaism. „There are elements and symbols in the Old Testament,“ Evola commented, „that possess metaphysical and therefore universal value.“ He also praised Kabbalah as one of the few initiatory paths that can still be followed successfully in the West today.

His attacks were directed against the Jews as a symbol of the rule of economic-materialistic individualism and the hegemony of money. A Jewish critic, Adriana Goldstaub, agreed that Evola did not deem all Jews, or the Jews exclusively, as responsible for the decline of the modern world.

It is true, Hansen notes, that Evola was attracted to the theory of a ‘global conspiracy’ by Jewish and Freemasonic circles, with the intention of toppling Christian and traditional state institutions; but he considered such circles not so much movers as instruments of other forces, not necessarily human.

In summary, Evola ‘engaged’ himself for almost sixty years in the fight to defend his principles. He embodied, says Hansen, the ‘legionary spirit’, which was a phrase he took both from the greatness of the Roman army and the Legionary movement of one of his most admired heroes, the Rumanian Corneliu Codreanu.[17] Evola defined the legionary spirit as „the attitude of him who can choose the hardest life, who is able to continue fighting even when he knows that the battle is materially lost, who holds to the ancient precept that ‘loyalty is mightier than fire’ and who carries the traditional idea of honour and dishonour within.“

Evola was something of a universal man. Amongst other pursuits, he found time as an alpinist for several difficult climbs; he felt at home among the mountains; and the mountain remained a potent and inspiring symbol for him of an arena where direct experience of the transcendent can occur.

He requested in his will that after his death the urn containing his ashes be deposited in a glacial crevasse on Monte Rosa; and this was faithfully carried out by his executors and friends.

Beyond doubt Baron Julius Evola was a man of destiny and a great man. The closest figure for comparison in the English-speaking world is surely the Traditional poet, dramatist and essayist, T. S. Eliot.[18] It seems likely that Evola will exert more influence on the world after his life than in it.

Conservative Revolution

In Men Among the Ruins Evola begins by considering what needs to be preserved (or re-instated) by a truly authentic counter-revolution; he identifies his enemy as „the subversion introduced in Europe by the revolutions of 1789 and 1848.“

In a passage remarkably reminiscent of words of T. S. Eliot in his 1917 essay „Tradition and the Individual Talent,“[19] Evola defines the Tradition that needs to be defended: „Tradition is neither servile conformity to what has been, nor a sluggish perpetuation of the past into the present.

„Tradition, in its essence, is something simultaneously meta-historical and dynamic: it is an overall ordering force in the service of principles that have the chrism of a superior legitimacy (we may even call them ‘principles from above’).“

Thus, as Eliot, Russell Kirk and others also did, he warns against the error of a worldly, but short-sighted and partial, conservatism, involving merely the defence of the „sociopolitical positions and the material interests of a given class, of a given caste.“

He stresses, too, the need to be faithful not so much to past forms and institutions as to the principles of which they were particular expressions.

„New forms, corresponding in essence to the old ones, are liable to emerge from them as if from a seed.“

In Australia, undoubtedly, imperfect forms and movements have come into being since Federation[20] (of which One Nation is currently the most notorious), which were not sufficiently rooted in traditional principles because their leaders lacked adequate understanding.

„The conservative revolution must emerge as a predominantly spiritual phenomenon,“ Evola insists. In Australia some movements have paid insufficient attention to this fundamental (Graham Campbell’s Australia First fatally lacked such vision, for all its pragmatic and sensible socio-political positions).

Others have been too closely attached to outdated and inadequate religious forms, such as the National Civic Council[21] and National Action[22] (to different strands of Catholicism) and the Australian League of Rights[23] (to an Anglicanism mediated through the particular mind of Major Clifford Douglas, founder of Social Credit).

Evola, naturally, focuses especially upon Italy, as he looks for historical forms that might be the „basis for an integration that will immediately leave them behind.“ For him, these are the „ancient Roman world“ (the world of Cato, not of Nero!) and „certain aspects of mediaeval civilization“ (mainly the Ghibelline movement which supported the Holy Roman Empire).

This prompts the question of what forms we in Australia should seek as supports; and immediately it must be stressed that for us Australian history cannot be viewed as beginning with the brave seamen who discovered our continent only a few centuries ago.

For us, despite the barrage of contemporary propaganda to the contrary, Australia remains a fundamentally British nation (it retains the British Crown, a constitution and laws essentially inspired by Britain, and the language of the British people).

Thus our history extends back to the foundations of Britain itself, and its four kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (the best Irish tradition is that of Tara and the High Kings). Our supports will be found from a period of two millennia.

The Basis of Sovereignty

Evola’s second chapter („Sovereignty, Authority, Imperium“) is one of his most important. He proceeds from the conviction that the principle of the „true State“ (a principle expressed as sovereignty, authority and law) is itself founded upon transcendence.

As soon as Evola moves downwards from this metaphysical point of origin, his formulations require careful critical examination. For example, he admires

„the pure power of command, the almost mystical power and auctoritas inherent in one who had the function and quality of Leader: a leader in the religious and warrior order as well as in the order of the patrician family, the gens.“

Here, already, is a possible weakness in Evola. Himself by nature a kshatriya (knightly man of honor), he tends (in my view) to wrongly annex for his caste the superior authority of the brahmins (the sages, those who know) – just as, in places, he demeans the brahmins by confusing them with „priests“ who he sees as usurpers of the original royal authority.[24]

Of the principle of sovereignty, Evola writes that „it is also necessary to recognize its attribute of absoluteness.“ Such an absoluteness can only belong to the One Divine Source („There is no God but God.“), irrespective of what name is given to this source („God,“ „Allah,“ „Brahman,“ „The Goddess“ or whatever).

Evola tends, however, at times, to transfer this absoluteness to forms which appeal to his strongly masculine, knightly and warrior temperament. Yet, no matter how valuable they may be, such forms remain contingent and limited, not universal. This tendency to absolutize the contingent is the „occupational hazard“ of the modes of dogmatic religion which have proceeded from the Middle East.

We can observe among the three „Peoples of the Book“ three forms of this error: the absolutization of a people (Judaism), of a prophet (Christianity) and of a sacred scripture (Islam). (We may compare the theological mistake, noted by Maurice Nicoll and Frithjof Schuon, of absolutizing Hell, an error deriving from the mistranslation of the Greek word aionios as „eternal“ instead of „age-long.“[25] Just as „there is no God but God,“ so there is no eternity but eternity.)

Evola correctly identifies the principle of sovereignty as „the point of stability“ and „the natural centre“ of the entire organism. The essential political task in Australia at the present time is to safeguard and then strengthen and even re-establish the only centre we possess, which is the monarchy, Christian and British, which we currently share with the mother country and some other nations.

The republican presidency which is being vigorously promoted by powerful (and sometimes sinister) influences, as well as by numerous wiseacres (sincere as well as opportunistic), cannot provide such a centre, because it is not authorized by a transcendent origin.

Princeps a legibus solutus („the law does not apply to the one who acts as Leader“) is a maxim quoted approvingly by Evola; but it, too, needs qualification.

Strictly, it applies only to the leader, or monarch, who lives and governs „in accordance with the mandate of Heaven,“ as Chinese tradition puts it.[26]

Royal dynasties, emperors, houses can lose their te; and then it becomes right that they be replaced by fresh blood. Unlucky the generation on whom the burden of replacement falls, however, as such transitions are fraught with instability and danger.

Evola rejects emphatically the modern heresy that the State is the expression of ‘society’.

„The anagogical end (namely, of a power drawing upward) of the State is […] completely denied by the ‘social’ or ‘communal’ view of its formation.“

Nor, he argues, is it the chief purpose of the State to bring worldly happiness or pleasure (as Aldous Huxley showed in Brave New World[27]).

Evola places much store on the theory of ‘the regression of the castes’ and the claim that we are living in the last phase of the fourth and darkest age. He sees the decline as having begun when the rulers lost their authorizing link with the worlds above.

„Later in history, this line leads, if not to the imperium, to the divine right of kings; where there were no groups created by the power of a rite, there were orders, aristocracies, political classes defined by disciplines and dignities. […] Then the line was broken, and the decadence of the State idea […] ended with the inversion through which the world of the demos and the materialized masses emerged on the political horizon, engaging in the struggle for power.“

This picture of deterioration is important for us, because it reminds us that even the monarchical political orders of the period of European greatness and expansion were themselves seriously deficient. This suggests that Australian monarchists today need to recover a concept of royalty that exceeds in dignity anything recorded in British history. It may be that such a concept can be found in the ancient cultures of Egypt,[28] India and China.

Much more questionable is Evola’s attempt to unite his image of the State to manliness.

„The State is under the masculine aegis, while ‘society’ and, by extension, the people or demos are under the feminine aegis.“

Evola’s attempt to justify this from mythology appears to depend on a selective approach to ancient myths.

His approach parallels that espoused by Melbourne psychologist Ronald Conway in The Great Australian Stupor and Land of the Long Weekend.[29] Conway takes over from historian of sexuality Gordon Rattray Taylor[30] the model of four psychological modes into which human beings, their behaviors and communities formed by those behaviors, can be classified. He idealizes the patrist-conservative at the expense of the patrist-authoritarian, the matrist-permissive and the fraternalist-anarchic.

It seems likely, however, that a fifth mode should be included, which I designate as the matrist-creative; and that normality (in the sense of rightness and good health) should be seen to reside in the wedding of the patrist-conservative and matrist-creative.

Both Conway and Evola are clearly very aware of the gulf between the Higher Masculine (the sage, the warrior) and the Lower Masculine (the profiteer, the mobster), but each, through some fault of temperament, has failed to acknowledge a corresponding dichotomy between the Higher Feminine (well symbolized by the goddesses in many pantheons) and the Lower Feminine (the nymph, the courtesan).

Thus, when Evola asserts that „both democracy and socialism ratify the shift from the masculine to the feminine and from the spiritual to the material and the promiscuous,“ he has in mind the Lower Feminine only and has temporarily forgotten the comparable imperfection of the Lower Masculine (which is clearly just as much implicated in „the revolt of the masses“).

Evola also warns against an insufficient kind of patriotism. „The notions of nation, fatherland and people, despite their romantic and idealistic halo, essentially belong to the naturalistic and biological plane and not the political one.“ He contrasts „the masses,“ who can be easily mobilized by patriotic motifs, with „men who differentiate themselves […] as bearers of a complete legitimacy and authority, bestowed by the Idea (of the true State) and by their rigorous, impersonal adherence to it. The Idea…must be the true fatherland for these men.“

Evola tends to disparage adherence „to the same land, language or blood.“ Perhaps stock and „blood“ are more important than he admits, being the bodies in which the ‘soul of the State’ can incarnate. Even Evola, writing only eight years after the end of World War II, may have been traumatized by the intense anti-Nazism of that time.

His rejection of democracy is trenchant:

„When a sovereignty is no longer allowed other than one that is the expression and the reflection of the ‘will of the nation’, it is almost as if a creature overtook its creator.“

He traces the „inconsistency and, most of all, the cowardice“ of those who in our time constitute the political class to the shift from monarchical and aristocratic orders to „demagogues and to the so-called ‘servants of the nation’ […] who presume to ‘represent’ the people and who acquire various offices or positions of power by flattering and manipulating the masses.“

Then occurs the phenomenon of action through pseudo-myths, „formulas lacking any objective truth and that appeal to the sub-intellectual dimension and passions of individuals and the masses.“ The current campaign for „Aboriginal reconciliation“ is an example.[31]

Fantasy novels, such as The Lord of the Rings[32] and Terry Goodkind’s „Sword of Truth“ series,[33] represent a yearning in the souls of modern people to escape from democratic degradation back to the clear air of the true State. Russell Kirk also noted the importance of modern fantasy literature in Enemies of the Permanent Things.[34]

Evola also noted the attempt to create a counter-State by the forces of subversion: „A realization of the Idea is already present on the other front.“ He had in mind the recently formed United Nations Organization, which he correctly saw as lacking authorization by transcendence. Half a century later the danger of the „New World Order“ is much greater, as Australia’s ratification of the International Criminal Court has just recently shown.[35] Those who will not be ruled by kings will end up being ruled by tyrants.

Person, Justice, and Freedom

Evola names liberalism as the origin of the various inter-connected forms of global subversion. He sees the essence of liberalism as individualism. „It mistakes the person for the individual.“ The nonsensical theory of egalitarianism depends upon this confusion.

Evola defines a person as „an individual who is differentiated through his qualities, endowed with his own face, his proper nature, and a series of attributes that make him who he is […] that make him fundamentally unequal.“

This leads to a consideration of „natural rights“ or „human rights.“ Evola points out that „the principle according to which all human beings are free and enjoy equal rights ‘by nature’ is truly absurd, due to the very fact that by nature they are not the same.“

There may be such a thing as „the dignity of the human person,“ but it „admits to different degrees.“ Thus, justice means „to attribute to each and every one of these degrees a different right and a different freedom.“ Evola is a champion of discrimination, a just discrimination that recognizes the ancient principle „to each his own.“

Defence of personhood against the atomization of humanity into faceless individuals requires the recognition that man comes before society and not the reverse. Evola also places personhood as superior to membership of a nation.

„The perfection of the human being is the end to which every healthy social institution must be subordinated. […] This perfection must be conceived on the basis of a process of individuation and progressive differentiation.“

At the top of the pyramidal structure of the true State Evola rather vaguely imagines ‘the absolute person’, the „supremely realized person who represents the end, and the natural centre of gravity, of the whole system […] a dominating super-personality.“ Here he is in danger of forgetting the pre-eminence of the transcendent. The lives of sages such as Sri Ramana Maharshi[36] and Sheikh Alawi[37] indicate that the „top of the pyramid“ lies outside this world.

Evola upholds the right of the nation over ‘humanity’, over and against „all the forms of individualistic disintegration, international mixture and proletarization.“ As regards the question of property, he castigates economic liberalism for engendering „various forms of capitalist exploitation and cynical, antisocial plutocracy,“ but also castigates the French revolutionaries’ attack on the ancien régime[38] because it broke the organic connection „between personhood and property, social function and wealth, and between a given qualification or moral nobility and the rightful and legitimate possession of goods.“

These developments enabled the communist attack on the very principle of private property,[39] since „whenever there is no higher legitimization of ownership, it is always possible to wonder why some people have property and others do not, or why some people have earned for themselves privileges and social pre-eminence […], while lacking something that would make them stand out and above everybody else in an effective and sensible manner.“

By contrast, „ancient and primitive man essentially obeyed […] those in whom he perceived a saturation of mana (that is, sacred energy and life force).“ The lesson from this part of Evola’s book is that the Australian Right must courageously champion discrimination, hierarchy, caste and personhood – and find ways (a rhetoric, a discourse) of showing ordinary persons how a society based on such principles will bring them more real benefit than the utopian dreams of egalitarians.

Totalitarianism

Evola points out the fundamental distinction between the traditional, organic State, based upon transcendent authority, and the modern totalitarian state.

A State is traditional and organic „when it has a centre that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious way […] when, by virtue of a system of hierarchical participation, every part within its relative autonomy performs its function and enjoys an intimate connection with the whole.“

Such a state is sympathetic to pluralism and decentralization, which „can be accentuated in proportion to the degree to which the centre enjoys a spiritual and even transcendent character, a sovereign equilibrating power and a natural prestige.“

In such a State there is „an inner order of single freedoms, an immanence of general law that guides and sustains people without coercing them.“ Evola notes the importance of oaths in traditional societies. „The oath of loyalty […] was regarded as a true sacrament […] in the feudal world.“

By contrast, a totalitarian state is a counterfeit of the organic ideal. Unity is imposed from the outside by a power that is exclusively and materially political. There is a tendency towards uniformity and intolerance of any partial form of autonomy and any degree of freedom, for any intermediate body between the centre and the periphery.

This in turn engenders „a kind of sclerosis […] a monstrous hypertrophy of the entire bureaucratic-administrative structure,“ leading to „an insolent intrusion of the public sphere into the private domain.“ A super-organized, centralized economy makes totalitarianism „a school of servility,“ in which there is „a sort of intrinsic and gloomy enjoyment of this relentless levelling process.“

Thus, totalitarian rule destroys „quality, articulated forms, castes and classes, the values of personhood, true freedom, daring and responsible initiative and heroic feats.“

Democrats tend to publicize an alleged antithesis between liberal democracy and totalitarianism; whereas the truth appears to be that such democracy is a phase in the decline from the true State into the tyranny of totalitarianism.

Thus, democrats (and their hidden promoters) are happy to give much publicity to George Orwell, whose Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four[40] brilliantly expose the evil of totalitarianism; but they tend to be much less enthusiastic about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose series of great novels culminating in The Red Wheel (parts of which are still, mysteriously, unavailable in English) not merely rivals Orwell’s depiction of the horror, but also advocates a return to traditional verities including religious orthodoxy.[41] The Australian Right needs to note the difference between the two writers (for Orwell never recovered from his early rebellion against Tradition) and to stress that the Sovereign, acting in the service of God, is a better protector from tyranny than the democratic politician.

„Sons of the People“

Evola sees another extreme consequence of democracy to be Bonapartism,[42] which he defines as „a despotism based on a democratic view, which it denies de facto while fulfilling it in theory.“ Many a modern dictator, large or small, comes under this heading.

The danger of such figures is well indicated by Evola:

„Since he personifies the will of the people, which is conceived as the political ultima ratio, the leader ends up claiming for himself an unlimited authority and regarding all the intermediate political bodies and all the branches of government as completely dependent on the central power, which alone is believed to legitimately represent the people.“

Orwell’s portrait of Big Brother attacked this kind of dictatorship.

Evola further distinguishes the true king from the Bonapartist despot by considering their relationships with those whom they rule:

„While the traditional view of sovereignty and authority sees it characterized by distance from the people, and the feeling of distance induces in the inferiors a sense of veneration, a natural respect and disposition to obedience and loyalty towards the leaders […], the Bonapartist despot is […] enslaved to the complex of ‘popularity’ and […] appeals to the lowest levels of human beings.“

Bread and circuses – or the modern equivalents!

In considering dictatorship, a mode of rule he finds but rarely justified in history, Evola points out that, according to traditional thought, „what matters is that a man be valued and recognized in terms of the idea and the principle he upholds, and not vice-versa.“

Thus, within a properly constituted aristocratic order, we should admire a noble „for being one in whom a tradition and a special ‘spiritual race’ shine forth […] whose greatness is due not to his human virtues, but rather to the principle, the idea and a certain regal impersonality that he embodies.“

In this context Evola dismisses Machiavelli’s prince as one whose authority no longer comes from above, its foundation being mere worldly strength.

„Here the leader does not consider the higher faculties that can be reawakened in his subjects; he harbours contempt and a fundamental pessimism towards people in general, on the basis of an alleged political ‘realism’.“

Such a leader also lacks a true respect for himself and his own dignity.

In Australia, the kind of adulation felt in some quarters for people as diverse as Paul Keating,[43] Pauline Hanson, and Sir William Deane[44] reminds us of the temptations the general populace may experience to draw towards themselves the „son“ or „daughter“ of „the people.“

Evola does not, by the way, neglect to pay respect to the military genius and achievements of Napoleon Bonaparte, but associates these with the heroism of the dux or imperator, a figure carefully distinguished in ancient Rome from the rex.

The lesson for the Australian Right here is that it must seek a national leader who embodies the aristocratic sense of quality that comes hand-in-hand with a sense of humility before the awesome presence of God. A populist leader will be insufficient.

A Demonic Economy

„Nothing in excess!“ (the Delphic Oracle)

„Substine et abstine!“ („Stand firm and hold back!“)

These are two of the traditional sayings Evola invokes in his examination of the modern glorification of work in our demonized economy.

In traditional societies „individuals still lived in the station allotted to them by life. In those societies an individual contained his need and aspirations within natural limits; he did not yearn to become different from what he was, and thus he was innocent of that alienation decried by Marxism.“

Evola also refers to the Thomist and Lutheran teaching that the acquisition of goods should be restricted and that work and the quest for profit are justifiable only in order to acquire a level of wealth corresponding to a person’s status in life.

He compares this traditional lifestyle of restraint and modesty with the pathological behavior of the modern world in which the importance of the economy is grossly exaggerated, so as to exercise a hypnotic tyranny over consumers whose appetites have been artificially inflamed.

„The true antithesis,“ Evola insists, „is between a system in which the economy rules supreme […] and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities.“

Evola counters the utilitarian argument that the development of modern commerce and industry has improved the standard of living by pointing out that „the qualities that matter the most in a man and make him who he is often arise in harsh circumstances and even in conditions of indigence and injustice, since they represent a challenge to him, testing his spirit.“

Evola sees the task ahead as being „to deproletarize the view of life“ and calls for a metanoia,[45] an inner transformation that will strike at the heart of the hegemony of work and regain for man his inner freedom.

As regards the State itself, he suggests that autarchy may be an ethical precept.

„It is better to renounce the allure of improving general social and economic conditions and to adopt a regime of austerity than to become enslaved to foreign interests.“

This, of course, was a key position taken by the great Portuguese leader Dr. Oliveira Salazar, whose life and philosophy deserves careful study.[46] The overthrow of his successor, Dr Marcello Caetano, by the Spinola coup in 1974 was one of the tragedies of modern Europe – and of southern Africa. The full story has perhaps not yet been told in English.

Evola also makes an important distinction between work and action. It is action that is performed by those of the kshatriya class – by ascetics, rulers, artists, explorers, warriors, scientists, diplomats, philosophers and theologians.

The challenge for the Australian Right, in the context of this tyranny of a mercantile outlook, is to articulate a comprehensive vision for Australians which will have the capacity to win their hearts away from hedonism and the lust for wealth, which is currently symbolized so effectively by the domination of gambling facilities of all kinds.

History and its Misuse

Evola attacks a tradition of historicism, originating with Hegel, which has given an abnormal emphasis to history, to the advantage of subversive forces.

He laments „the disastrous shift from a civilization of being (characterized by stability, form and adherence to super-temporal principles) to a civilization of becoming (characterized by change, flux and contingency).“ He also points out that the ideas of History, progress and evolution have been closely associated.

Monarchists will enjoy his observation that „the anathema of being ‘anti-historical’ and ‘outside history’ is cast against those who still remember the way things were before and who call subversion by its name, instead of conforming to the processes that are precipitating the world’s decline.“

From this discussion, Evola moves to a consideration of the „different histories“ that exist within the history of nations. What is required is a wise choice of traditions. Evola condemns a pseudo-patriotic historiography in Italy which, „due to its partisan spirit, suggestions and catchphrases, precludes the objective comprehension of many aspects of the past.“ He even writes of fabricated history: „the alibi that revolutionary liberalism, democracy and the thinkers of Freemasonry and the Enlightenment have created for their own benefit.“

The Australian Right needs to rescue much from the history of the British and of Australia which has been overlooked, while contending intelligently with partisan accounts of (for example) the treatment of the Aborigines, which are designed to enable political change leading to a republic (in name) which will be a province (in fact) of the New World Order.

Warrior and Bourgeois

Evola’s most self-revealing chapter is his study of the different ways of looking at war and the role of the warrior found in traditional „heroic“ societies and in modern bourgeois societies. It was only in reading it that I realized how much I myself am a product of mercantile politics, and why men like Sir Walter Scott and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote novels like Quentin Durward and Sir Nigel.[47]

Evola points out that „militarism“ is the bête noire of many democrats – and that it is a word at times misapplied to noble warrior behavior. His account, in this context, of modern democracies seems, in the light of September 11, to be remarkably up to date!

He notes that their view „is that in society the primary element is the bourgeois type and the bourgeois life during times of peace.“ Such a life „is dominated by the physical concern for safety, well-being and material wealth, with the cultivation of letters and the arts serving as a decorative frame.“ The military is a mere instrument. Democratic ideology proclaims that armies should be used „only as an international police force“ to maintain „the peace.“ Evola dryly comments that „in most cases this amounts to allowing wealthy nations to live undisturbed.“ The armed forces are used „to impose or retain an economic hegemony; to gain new markets and to acquire raw materials; and to create new space for capital seeking investment and profit.“ This explains „the deep, widespread mistrust toward the ideological background of the recent wars, a background shaped by many lies and much propaganda.“

In short, the bourgeois-democratic lifestyle leads to hypocrisy and deceit: corruption on the grand scale.

Evola contrasts such a civilization with that of which the ancient Order of Teutonic Knights and the Prussian tradition were recent examples. In such a world the warrior (as opposed to the mercenary soldier) was not at the service of the merchant class but ruled over it.

His lifestyle had its own spirituality and ethics:

„love for hierarchy; relationships of obedience and command; courage; feelings of honour and loyalty; specific forms of active impersonality capable of producing anonymous sacrifice; frank and open relationships from man to man, from one comrade to another, from leader to follower.“

In such a climate of heroic integrity war did not have a merely negative meaning. Evola points out that there is an identity between spirit and superior civilization and the warrior’s role.

„In the traditional world we encounter the interpretation of life as a perennial struggle between metaphysical powers, between Uranian forces of light and order […] and telluric, dark forces of chaos and matter. […] Traditional man yearned to fight this battle and to triumph in both the inner and outer worlds.“

Evola adds that there is an interdependence between the warrior idea and that „of a certain ‘asceticism’, inner discipline and superiority toward or control of one’s self.“ This was „the foundation of a specific ‘style’ that has largely been lost.“

He also reminds us that in many civilizations „even the hierarchies with a spiritual foundation either relied on hierarchies that were more or less warrior […] or reproduced their form.“ Then, „when the original spiritual level could not be maintained, hierarchical structures of a warrior type constituted the armature of the major States, especially in the West.“

Thus, „since the sensibility for purely spiritual values and dignities has become mostly atrophied among Western populations […], the model of a military hierarchy […] is almost the only one that can still supply the basis“ for an upwardly striving lifestyle. „That model still retains a certain prestige,“ since „there is a heroic dimension in the Western soul that cannot be extirpated.“

One advantage of a heroic, as opposed to a bourgeois, civilization is its readiness to fight. There is „a certain continuity of spirit and attitude, a common denominator in peace and in war that facilitates the shift from one state to the other.“ Thus, „when a war breaks out, a nation is ready for it, and fights with a sufficient number of men who reproduce in a new form the warrior type.“

Evola also addresses the question of what role can be played by the heroic spirit in modern, „total“ wars, in which science and technology have so drastically changed the human conditions of combat. Here he writes with a bleakness that he probably absorbed in part from Ernst Jünger.[48]

Essentially, he calls for a quality of endurance through warfare that is comparable to „elementary and unavoidable natural phenomena.“ Man must „remain spiritually upright“ through „extreme trials and destructions“ by developing in himself „a new inner dimension […] of cold, lucid and complex heroism“ including „a sacrificial disposition.“

It seems clear that in Australia an effective movement of the Right will need to honor the warrior lifestyle in both its deeds and its words. Ways must be found to rouse our manhood from „the great Australian stupor“ that has perhaps resulted primarily from the bourgeois atmosphere.

Ronald Conway pointed out that Australia most nearly approached an aristocratic political order in the two decades before World War I, when there was a society of quality that Martin Boyd (a member of it) captured well in his novels, which merit close study.[49]

Religious Restoration

Hindu tradition teaches that there are four states in which human beings can exist: deep sleep, sleep, awakening and enlightenment or attainment. What we normally think of as our waking state is in fact sleep; and what we regard as sleep is deep sleep.

It was in this tradition that Gurdjieff[50] told those who came to his lectures that they were machines which „could do nothing,“ because they were asleep.

Evola does not mention this tradition in Men Among the Ruins, although he no doubt discusses it elsewhere. It is vital to an understanding of religion and, most especially, initiation – the processes of esoteric sacred tradition designed to wake initiates up. In my view, initiation is the prerogative of the brahmin caste; and René Guénon was correct to state that „the modern disaster“ had befallen Western Europe because the Church had lost its power to initiate.[51] That loss is the greatest difficulty with which modern Europeans and Australians who seek to restore traditional society must contend. It has created a void which can only be filled by a new impulse from the „worlds above.“

In another very important chapter („Tradition / Catholicism / Ghibellinism“) Evola begins by stressing that by Tradition he does not refer to religious traditions in general or to the Catholic Christian tradition in particular, but „to something wider, more austere and more universal than mere Catholicism.“

He acknowledges that in the past some conservative forces have been inspired by Catholicism, which „gave a special chrism to the principles of authority and sovereignty.“ However, „the true traditional spirit acknowledges a superior, metaphysical unity beyond the individual religious traditions.“

That position has been most succinctly and effectively expressed by Frithjof Schuon in The Transcendent Unity of Religions.[52] Representatives of Catholicism (such as James McAuley, the Australian poet, in The End of Modernity) and of Orthodoxy (such as Monk Damascene Christensen in Not of This World) have tried in vain to disprove this perennialist thesis.[53]

Evola correctly warns that foolish persistence in religious exclusivity will impede efforts to engage in the restoration of traditional political order. Evola needs to be quoted at length here, as too many Australian Christians are resisting the essential metanoia (not „repentance,“ but fundamental change of orientation – as Maurice Nicoll stressed).

„Despite the fact that every religious form has the right to a certain exclusivity in the area of its pertinence, the idea of this higher unity […] should be acknowledged by its most qualified representatives.

The exclusivist position may not be maintained without the danger of discrediting the traditional Catholics (and other Christians) who rigidly adhere to it. […] Nobody with a higher education can really believe in the axiom: ‘There is no salvation outside the Church.’ This is a matter not of ‘faith’, but of either knowledge or ignorance. […] The current state of knowledge in matters of comparative religion, mythology and even ethnology requires a revision and an adequate widening of the intellectual horizons.“

Muslims should heed this warning as well as Christians.

Evola also gives his attention to „the problem of the relationship between the principle of sovereignty and the religious principle in general,“ but his adherence to the Ghibelline cause may have led him astray. He argues that, according to Ghibelline theology, the Holy Roman Empire was „an institution of supernatural origin and character, like the Church.“

During the Middle Ages „the dignity of the kings themselves had an almost priestly nature (kingship being established through a rite that differed only in minor detail from episcopal ordination).“

The Ghibelline emperors opposed the hegemonic claims of the clergy and claimed to have only God above themselves. The realization of the human person was believed to consist either in the path of action (represented by the Empire) or in the path of contemplation (represented by the Church). This was Dante’s view. Thus, knighthood and the great knightly orders stood in relation to the Empire in the same way in which the clergy and the ascetic orders stood in relation to the Church.

Evola also points out that the title of Pontiff, originating from the Latin word pontifex („bridge-builder“) and denoting one who mediates transcendence into this world, was the title of Roman emperors.

Thus, in the first few centuries of the current era, as well as in the Byzantine Empire, the clergy were subjected to the Emperor in the theological domain, as is proved by the fact that it was to the Emperor that the formulas of the church councils were submitted for their final decision and ratification.

Evola clearly prefers this pre-eminence of Empire over Church to the model of the Guelph opposition, which sought to ensure that the Church was the supreme power. In my view, however, neither faction was completely right.

By nature, the brahmin is superior to the kshatriya. The latter needs the guidance of the former, not vice-versa. Unfortunately, the Church (as noted above) lost its brahminic capacity and thus forfeited any right to give directions to kings and emperors.[54] Nevertheless, kshatriyas continue to need guidance; an Arthur needs his Merlin, an Aragorn his Gandalf.

It is very doubtful whether the Byzantine and Ghibelline emperors were initiated men; in which case their claims to „have only God above them“ were of very dubious standing.

The probable truth is that both Church and Empire were „shells,“ in the sense in which Idries Shah uses the term in his book The Sufis.[55] That is to say, they preserved forms from former initiatory groups without possessing the capacity of initiation itself.

Hence in the world of European kingdoms that emerged out of the Middle Ages there was no perfect solution to the dilemma over which institution should have supreme power, Church or State; and, inevitably, there was a continuing tug-of-war.

Evola also developed further his critique of the Catholic Church, arguing that its „capability of providing adequate support for a revolutionary-conservative and traditionalist movement must be resolutely denied.“ He enumerated various failings of Catholicism and concluded that the direction it has taken „is a descending and anti-traditional one, consisting of modernization and coming to terms with democracy, socialism and progressivism.“

Thus, „the norm that must be followed […] is to travel an autonomous way, abandoning the Church to her destiny, considering her actual inability to bestow an official consecration on a true, great, traditional and super-traditional Right.“

My own view is that Australians of the Right should be a little more magnanimous in their attitude to the Catholic Church and other churches and even other religions. These may have their faults, but we will have our faults too; for we cannot at present claim to be initiates, to be awakened men. All of us are like travelers lost in the dark; we can use what intelligence we have to help each other, but must remain honestly aware of the tentative nature of our own efforts. Let us pray that Heaven will send down some future light to us or our descendants!

Finally, Evola comments on the apparent discrepancies between what he misguidedly calls „the nihilist teachings“ of Jesus in the Gospels and the kind of understanding necessary for effective rule of a kingdom or empire. Here, he seems to give insufficient weight to the obvious initiatory nature of much of the Gospel message, tending to respond to texts as though they are to be taken literally when beyond doubt they are to be taken symbolically.[56]

For example, he objects to the famous exhortation: „Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.“ He sees this as promoting a separation between human institutions and supernatural order which the Guelph faction was able to exploit. However, it surely refers to the fundamental difference between this world (Caesar’s world, the world of those asleep) and the worlds above (those of the awakening and the enlightened). The essential message is that the two worlds should not be confused.

It is only if the profound initiatory teaching of the Gospels is taken literally that it tends to conflict with practical common sense in our ordinary conduct in this mundane world!

Unreal „Realisms“

In his eleventh chapter Evola considers a variety of unsatisfactory responses to the unappealing and conformist world of the bourgeois.

He rejects neo-realism as „the mistake of those who regard only the inferior degrees of reality as real“ and condemns psychoanalysis as „a doctrine that divests and brands as unreal the conscious and sovereign principle of the person, considering as ‘real’ instead the irrational, unconscious, collective and nocturnal dimension of the human being, every higher faculty being seen as derived and dependent.“

He gives a particularly adroit and succinct summary of existentialism. It „proclaims the primacy of ‘existence’ over ‘being’, instead of acknowledging that existence acquires a meaning only when it is inspired by something beyond itself. […] In this philosophy, ‘existence’ is identified with the most shallow forms of life; this kind of existence is separated from any superior principle, made absolute and cherished in its anguished and lightless immediacy.“

That is an apt diagnosis of Albert Camus’ interesting but poisonous novel The Outsider, but would not be fairly applied to the nobler novel The Plague, in which the failed Algerian metaphysician struck a truly tragic note.[57]

Evola also notes that the bourgeois pettiness can even infect monarchs, churchmen and communist demonstrators. Another inappropriate response to the bourgeois mentality that he identifies is an exaggerated appreciation of culture and intellectualism, associated with „the growing, hypertrophic cerebralization of Western man,“ who has given too privileged a position in recent centuries to conceptual thought.

In response to these false alleys, Evola calls for „a more realistic opposition to the bourgeois spirit“ which is „oriented upward“ and includes „a revival of the heroic and aristocratic virtues.“

We must „remain upright, feeling the presence in life of that which leads beyond life.“ We need to recover a worldview based on „an inner form and a sensibility endowed with an innate character“ which expresses „instinctive certainty“ and a sense of „a sure meaning of life.“ This is the premise for „the emergence of new men and leaders“ capable of establishing a new political climate.

This suggests that any effective political movement of the Right in Australia will need to promote inner exploration in its followers – not merely pious prayer, but deeper forms of meditation and contemplation.

The Corporative Workplace

As a necessary step to the reassertion of control over the economy by the State, Evola recommends an end to „classism“ and class struggle.

His ideal is a corporative principle involving „a community of work and productive solidarity, based on the principles of competence, qualification and natural hierarchy, with the overall system characterized by a style of active impersonality, selflessness and dignity.“ He recalls the mediaeval artisan corporations, guilds and craft fraternities, whose members „enjoyed the status of free men and also were very proud of belonging to their association.“ Such men „felt love for their work, which was regarded as […] an art and an expression of one’s vocation.“ They readily upheld „the code of honour of their corporations.“

That world was turned upside down by the industrial revolution, which went hand-in-hand with the rise to power of usurious financial groups. Thus, says Evola:

„today the truly relevant and serious problem is that of the restraint that needs to be placed on the wild and unscrupulous struggle among various monopolies, and especially among the monopoly of goods and materials (co-operatives), the monopoly of money (banking, finance, stock speculations) and the monopoly of labour (trade unions).“

Evola is certain that „only the State can effectively […] limit the power of these groups“ and that this can only happen „where the State appears as a super-ordained power, capable of facing and defeating any subversive force.“ Australians should note here the overwhelming case for the retention of our monarchy. Yielding to the agitation for a republic will mean handing ourselves over to those who control these great monopolies – the „barons“ or „giants“ of the age. Our task, then, must be to breathe life back into the monarchy, by finding ways to rekindle heartfelt loyalty to the Crown, and later in our history to effect the inauguration of a truly Australian monarchy, seeded, as it were, from the parent tree in Britain.

Evola is emphatic that the struggle against a degenerate and arrogant capitalism must be waged „from above.“ As regards solutions, he is opposed to forms of worker co-ownership, which he sees as tending to fatal inefficiency, particularly in the management of large companies, which are like large armies. However, he suggests that „ways should be devised through which the worker could gradually become a small ‘owner,’ by making him possessor of non-transferable stocks of his company corporation.“

Evola calls for the suppression of „the worst type of capitalist, who is a parasitical recipient of profits and dividends.“ Instead, in a new corporative system, the owner of the means of production should „assume the function of responsible leader, technical manager and capable organizer of the business he runs, being surrounded by loyal workers who are free from trade union control.“

Evola understands well that „in the varieties of what is essentially mechanical work it is very difficult to retain the character of ‘art’ and of ‘vocation’ and for the results of production to show any signature of the personhood of those who worked to manufacture them.“ This poses a problem similar to that encountered earlier in the phenomenon of „total war“ caused by modern scientific, technological and industrial advances.

Evola adopts a similar solution, seeking „the emergence of a new type, characterized by a certain impersonality“ who will incarnate „new forms of the anonymity and unselfishness that characterized ancient corporativism.“ Clearly such a phenomenon could only appear in a noble and just State whose population as a whole had faith in the goodness and purposes of that State.

Evola also favored a reconstructed parliamentary system in which the Lower House is filled with representatives of the business, professional and trades corporations, whose task would mainly be the management of the State’s economic affairs.

Political concerns would largely be dealt with by the Upper House, which would consist of men who embodied and could defend spiritual and national interests of prestige and power. One should belong to this superior House „by designation from above and for life, almost as if it were an Order, on the basis of one’s natural dignity and inalienable qualification.“

Such discussions will make Australian men and women of the Right aware of the magnitude of the challenge that lies before them; but certainly we cannot rest content with the current political structures as they operate.

Occult Politics

In his thirteenth chapter, in which Evola rightly acknowledges his considerable debt to René Guénon,[58] the question is asked whether „it is necessary to identify influences of a higher order“ behind the disastrous collapse around the world of traditionally articulated societies.

Evola reminds us of how, for example, Catholic historiography „used to regard history as […] the unfolding of divine Providence, to which hostile forces are opposed […], „forces of evil“ […], „forces of the Antichrist“ […], forces of the cosmos against forces of chaos.“

This is potentially sensational copy! However, Evola does not develop any kind of detailed and documented enquiry into the mystery of iniquity. Many readers may agree with me on the basis of their own personal experience that there does seem to be active in our world a superhuman being of evil, whose presence can be felt on occasions as not merely one of enormous and elemental power, but also one of a devastating hatred and conscious malignity. Evola carries out no research into this matter, perhaps preferring to keep metaphysics out of what is largely just a primer for political action.

Instead, he uses the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, of whose authenticity he is clearly very skeptical, to allow him to raise another question, that of „whether or not the disorder of recent times is accidental, since it corresponds to a plan, the phases and fundamental instruments of which are accurately described in the Protocols.“

Thus, he focuses wholly on the question of whether or not there has been a worldly political conspiracy behind the world’s calamities. He produces a fairly convincing case that there has been, but avoids the cliché of placing blame on „the Jews“ and „Masonry.“ Rather, he surmises that these groups themselves may have been used by a more concealed source.

Evola also considers carefully the various instruments by which „occult war“ appears to be waged: „scientific suggestion and positivist propaganda, the tactic of replacement, the tactic of counterfeits,“ the encouragement of a useless traditionalism (the tares and chaff of Tradition), the tactic of inversion, the tactic of ricochet, the scapegoat tactic, the tactic of deliberate misidentification of a principle with its representative and the tactic of replacement infiltrations (in „shell-like“ organizations which have, as it were, lost their soul and so can become possessed by alien forces).

Evola sensibly warns us against quixotic gallantries in this dangerous situation.

„Those movements of the past that intended to react against and stem the currents of national, social and moral dissolution […] often upheld dangerously unilateral positions, due to the lack of adequate discernment; this was a weakness that […] played into the enemy’s hands.“

He concludes this chapter by adding:

„There is little hope that anything may be saved when among the leaders of a new movement there are no men capable of integrating the material struggle with a secret and inexorable knowledge, one that […] stands […] on the side of the luminous principle of traditional spirituality.“

The Roman Ideal

Related to Evola’s discussion of the need for a choice of traditions within a nation’s history is his comparison of the two dominant temperaments within the Italian soul: the Roman and the Mediterranean. A discussion interesting in itself, it also suggests that the Australian Right may need to undertake a comparable analysis of the Australian soul.

Evola begins by presenting two unexpected historical perspectives. He first argues that the „heroic-sacred“ world of early Rome and Sparta „was not perpetuated in the following ‘Classical’ civilization, from which, in turn, the ‘Latin spirit’ and the doctrine of the ‘unity of the peoples of Latin civilization’ derived.“

Next, he replaces the „democratic“ image of the Axis pact between Italy and Germany (a little clown joining a big devil) with a much more dignified interpretation. Arguing that Germany retained aspects of the „heroic-sacred“ world longer than Greece or Italy, he suggests that the Axis could have spiritually strengthened both peoples with a „reciprocal integration,“ if it had not been sabotaged – partly by elements in Italy itself, even Fascist cadres misled by the myth of the Risorgimento.

Evola’s depiction of „the original Roman spirit“ deserves to be quoted at length, since it clearly reflects his own personal ideal and the temperament which gave him his perspective on life. Australians might be wise to draw up a similar inventory of „the British spirit“ as the better part of their own national soul.

Evola saw the Roman spirit as based on a human type characterized by „self-control, an enlightened boldness, a concise speech and determined and coherent conduct, and a cold, dominating attitude exempt from personalism and vanity.

„To this Roman style belong virtus, in the sense not of moralism, but of virile spirit and courage; fortitudo and constantia, namely spiritual strength; sapientia, in the sense of thoughtfulness and awareness; disciplina, understood as love for a self-given law and form; fides, in the specifically Roman sense of loyalty and faithfulness; and dignitas, which in the ancient patrician society became gravitas and solemnitas, a studied and moderate seriousness.“

The Roman spirit preferred

„deliberate actions, without grand gestures, a realism that is […] love for the essential […], clarity […], an inner equilibrium and a healthy suspicion of every confused form of mysticism; a love for boundaries; the readiness to unite, as free human beings and without losing one’s identity, in view of a higher goal or for an idea […]; religio and pietas, which […] signify an attitude of respectful and dignified veneration for the gods and […] of trust and re-connection with the supernatural, which was experienced as omnipresent and effective.“

By contrast, Evola characterized the Mediterranean style much less favorably, seeing it as consisting of

„love for outward appearances and grand gestures; concern to be noticed by others and to make an impact on them; the choreographic-theatrical and spectacular, comparable to the French grandeur and gloire; the tendency toward a restless, chaotic and undisciplined individualism; intolerance of any general and strict law of order; the fireworks of a creativity disjoined from any higher meaning and tradition; the pseudo-genial hypercritic, expert in eluding a law; the cunning and malicious fooler of others; a gesticulating, noisy and disordered exuberance; a manic effusiveness; excitability and verbosity; a flaunted and conventional sense of honour; immediacy of desire or affection; and a public cheeriness masking an inner hopelessness.“

There is an element of caricature, of course, in this comparison of two poles; and Evola’s „ideal Roman“ is not the only fruitful way of being human: it is not a universal requirement of man. Nevertheless, Evola’s discussion can alert us to the ways in which propagandists and agitators promote various stereotypes of „the typical Australian „ or „the Aussie bloke and Sheila“[59] which may, in fact, be inadequately attuned to reality as well as psychosocially demeaning. The Australian Right needs to determine its own modes of „the ideal Australian character,“ based on scrupulous examination of our history and culture; and to promote these coolly and calmly in the public forums.

As Evola also noted, there is no need to suppress passion; rather, we should heed Nietzsche’s warning „against every morality that tends to dry up every impetuous current of the human soul instead of channeling it.“[60] What matters is „to organize one’s being in an integral way around the capability of recognizing, discriminating and adequately utilizing the impulses and the lights that emerge from one’s deep recesses.“

For Evola, the „myth of Rome“ was Italy’s most desirable model. „In the rectifying and formative action the key role will always be played by the political myth […] a galvanizing idea-force. The myth reacts on the environment, implementing the law of elective affinities: it awakens, frees and imposes those possibilities of single individuals and the environment to which they correspond.“

Sex and Population

Evola believes in the need for humanity to control the world’s population growth.

„Overpopulation exacerbates the problem of how to employ the workforces; it also unavoidably intensifies production processes, which in turn, due to their determinisms, strengthen the demonic nature of the economy. The result is the increasing enslavement of the individual and the reduction of free space and of any autonomous movement in modern cities.“

Evola also mentions the „congestion that in turn produces critical international solutions,“ a theme that Jean Raspail later took up in his novel The Camp of the Saints[61] and a reality that now poses headaches for the Australian Government as regards immigration policy.

Evola takes up a number of controversial and uncompromising positions. In the first place, he endorses the view that some peoples are superior to others and that the political order of the State should appropriately reflect this.

„Every true empire is born from a race of conquerors who overcame lands and peoples […] on the basis of a higher calling and qualification, which allowed them to rule as a minority in foreign lands […] the Romans, the Achaemenids, the Franks, the Spaniards, the early Islamic hosts and the British.“

In the second place, he rejects as outdated and in fact immoral the Catholic religion’s embrace of the biblical principle of the multiplication of the human species and the Church teaching that sexual union and marriage are legitimate and sanctified only when they are aimed at procreation.

Evola acknowledges the good sense of a Vatican II declaration that love, too, may be a legitimate foundation of marriage. In referring also to the libertine, „who elevates pleasure to an art,“ and the Dionysianism „that in antiquity enjoyed a religious sanction,“ Evola clearly insists that birth control measures should be widely employed so that sexual satisfaction of various intensities can be obtained without worsening the population problem.

A third controversial position (very personal to Evola himself) concerns the identification of „the cult of children“ with the bourgeois spirit. Evola calls for men to join the revolutionary-conservative movement who should almost look upon creating a family as a betrayal of the cause. He perhaps mistakes a personal preference for an ideal. Such men are not necessarily to be ascetics.

„I believe that in the personal domain the right to an ample degree of sexual freedom for these men (the warriors) should be acknowledged, against moralism, social conformism and ‘heroism in slippers’.“

A degree of personal feeling has clearly entered the discourse here, confirmed by Evola’s approving quotation of Nietzsche’s infamous dictum that „man should be trained for war and woman for the recreation (or rest) of the warrior.“

At the same time Evola must be commended for his courage and frankness in tackling such difficult subjects in defiance of taboos old or new. The Australian Right will need to show similar integrity in determining policy on immigration and population issues for our future.

A True European Union

Evola’s last chapter considers the daunting task of bringing about a united Europe in accordance with the principles of Tradition. This is of great interest in a time when a quite different kind of European Union is being more or less forced on the peoples of the traditional European nations; and when Britain is moving towards its fateful referendum on whether or not to accept the Euro as its unit of currency.

Evola begins by outlining the organic character that his ideal Europe would possess.

„Fatherlands and nations may exist. […] What should be excluded are nationalism, imperialism, chauvinism – every fanatical absolutization of a particular unit.“

Such a European Empire would safeguard the principles of both unity and multiplicity.

„Individual states would have the character of partial organic units, gravitating around a one that is not a part.“

Transcending the political sphere would be an idea, a tradition and a spiritual power.

„The limitations of the sovereignty of the single national units before an eminent right of the Empire will have as their sole condition this transcendental dignity of the Empire […] an organism composed of organisms.“

Thus, „the elementary presupposition of an eventual united Europe appears to be the political integration of the single nations.“ A healthy whole cannot be made up of unhealthy parts.

In such integrated nations, quite different from the current bourgeois democracies, the elites of each nation „could understand one another and co-ordinate their work,“ rather in the manner of the royal houses and their supporting aristocracies in the Old Europe.

Evola does not fudge the „disheartening magnitude“ of the task, which seems almost utopian. He notes that the problem of finding a spiritual foundation for such a European Empire is quite unresolved. Neither Catholicism nor „a generic Christianity“ (which would be too weak and diffuse) would serve the purpose. Moreover, Europeans have largely lost contact with the highest meaning of Europe itself; and „European tradition“ and „European culture“ are too confused and too contaminated by false ideas.

Evola is aware that the „general leveling of cultures“ of the world has been used as an argument by those „who do not want a united Europe but rather a unified world, in a supernational organization or World Government.“ Today’s European Union, brought about by massive deceit in recent decades, is perhaps a step in that direction. It would, of course, lead to an anti-traditional world in which the majority of human beings would be drugged and driven serfs.

Evola adds that „a radical European action finds its major obstacle in the lack of something that could represent a starting point, a firm support and a centre of crystallization.“ He proposes the creation of an Order whose members would work in the right direction in the various nations.

Such an order could include members of ancient European families, warrior types (especially those trained in elite combat units) and other persons in whom a distaste for „the modern disaster“ has aroused a yearning for a traditional political order, together with the will and character to strive for it.

„The personality of an authentic leader at the centre and head of the Order is of the utmost importance.“

No such person was visible to Evola in Europe as he wrote those words. For members of the Australian Right, this chapter reminds us of the kind of political order in Australia towards which we should work, together with the attendant difficulties. To date it seems that no suitable leader arose during the five decades after the Japanese collapse; but perhaps that reflects the fact that individuals and groups on the Australian Right lacked the wisdom and understanding to create the necessary atmosphere in which such a leader could appear and act.

Envoi

The most arresting question to be asked of Evola is whether or not he ever wrote as an initiate, as an awakened man, as a brahmin. Judging by Men Among the Ruins, I believe the answer to be no.

A not altogether friendly critic of Evola, Richard Drake, in Chapter 7 („Children of the Sun“) of his Revolutionary Mystique and Terrorism in Contemporary Italy (Indiana University Press) has written of Evola’s period of magical studies with the Ur group in the 1920’s as follows: „Evola proposed a philosophy of utter wakefulness and vigilance on this plane of existence, the only one with which he was seriously concerned.“ This was after Evola had left the Ur group.

And Dr H. T. Hansen, in „A Short Introduction to Julius Evola“ published in Theosophical History noted of Evola: „Since he does not regard himself as master, he can recognize no student.“

Evola’s behavior in 1945 is also inconsonant with that of a wise initiate. Hansen reported:

„During air attacks, Evola had the habit of not going to the bomb shelters but instead went on working in his office or walked about the streets of Vienna. He wanted, as he said, ‘calmly to question his fate.’“

In fact it was foolish negligence – and he suffered terribly for it.

Robin Waterfield, the biographer of Guénon, published „Baron Julius Evola and the Hermetic Tradition“ in Gnosis Magazine. About the Ur phase, he tersely commented:

„Their attempts to form a ‘magical chain’ in order to exercise supernatural influence on others were soon abandoned.“

Waterfield felt that Evola had, however, performed a service by bringing back to European attention the concept of theosis, personal deification – that level of attainment known as jivanmukta in Hinduism, „the superior person“ in Chinese tradition, „the liberated one“ in Buddhism and the saint or sage in Christian tradition.

„This notion has been fiercely opposed by the hierarchical Christian Church, whose clergy have seen unmediated access to divine grace as a threat to their influence and power.“

They have also, of course, found it at odds with the Pauline doctrine of the „one atonement“ by the blood of the crucified Jesus.

In my view Evola is a man of very similar character and achievements to the great Russian writer P. D. Ouspensky (1878-1947), who searched diligently (or thought he did) for a school of initiation, but never succeeded in becoming initiated.[62] There seems to have been a degree of gloom at the end of each man’s life, the gloom of hamartia, of having had one’s arrow fall short of the target. Yet, in the world of us ordinary men, the unawakened, each of these writers is a towering figure of integrity, independent thought and intellectual achievement.

Their work has to be read critically, however. British psychiatrist and devotee of the Cathar tradition, Dr. Arthur Guirdham,[63] would surely have diagnosed each man as a typical modern obsessive. Obsession is indeed a psychological failing, but it can drive its victims to lifetimes of intense labor and magnificent achievements. In my case, my main criticism of Evola is his undue depreciation of the feminine side of human nature, his unfair identification of femininity with the will-to-sleep, to give up the struggle to achieve wisdom. Evola appears to me to have been a very highly strung person; and his adherence to a „path of virility“ was a means by which he kept his own nature from collapsing. It was a noble path, but it is not the only path.

Further Reading

Books by Julius Evola available in English and published by Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont, USA, unless otherwise indicated, are:

  • Eros and the Mysteries of Love (1983)
  • The Yoga of Power (1992)
  • Revolt against the Modern World (1995)
  • The Hermetic Tradition (1995)
  • The Doctrine of Awakening (1996)
  • Meditation on the Peaks (Feral House) (1997)
  • The Mystery of the Grail (1997)
  • Introduction to Magic (2001)
  • Men among the Ruins (2002)

The Author

Nigel Jackson was born on September 4, 1939, in Melbourne, Australia. He holds a Master of Arts degree in English from the University of Melbourne and has been a secondary school teacher for thirty-five years. He published four books of poetry in the 1970’s and The Case for David Irving in 1994. For two decades he has publicly defended the principle of intellectual freedom and, consequently, the right of revisionist historians to publish in national forums without defamation, harassment or punishment. This review-article on Julius Evola’s Men Among the Ruins was accepted for publication in three parts by the Australian New Dawn Magazine and the first part appeared in its September-October 2002 edition. Mysteriously, the other parts never appeared and the magazine was deaf to several letters of enquiry by the author.


Notes

[1] Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind, Faber, London, 1954.
[2] Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics, University of Chicago Press, USA, 1966.
[3]

George Hannan was a Liberal Party Senator in the Australian Parliament from 1956 to 1964 and 1970 to 1974. A staunch Catholic and politically conservative, he endeavoured to form his own party in 1974, after being deprived of party preselection.

[4]

Graham Campbell was the Australian Labour Party Member for Kalgoorlie in the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament from 1980 to 1995 and then held his seat as an Independent from 1995 to 1999. Uncorrupt, outspoken and fearless, he made many admirable public statements that disconcerted both major parties, such as his open criticism of the Zionist Jewish lobby for its attack on free speech during the parliamentary debate on the 1994 Racial Hatred Bill. See Graham Campbell and Mark Uhlmann, Australia Betrayed, Foundation Press, 65 Oats Street, Carlisle, Western Australia 6101, Australia, 1995.

[5]

Pauline Hanson was an Independent Member for Ipswich in the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament from 1996 to 1998. She was a frank but simplistic populist who espoused some politically incorrect policies of a generally old-fashioned conservative nature, especially concerning nationalism (as opposed to globalism), immigration and Aboriginal affairs. She formed the One Nation Party, which attracted a moderately substantial protest vote for a few years.

[6] Giuseppe di Lampedusa, The Leopard, Fontana, London, 1984.
[7] Oswald Spengler, Decline and Fall of the West (2 vols.), Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1986.
[8] The Tao Te Ching, Unwin, London, 1985.
[9] René Guénon, The Crisis of the Modern World, Luzac, London, 1942.
[10] Nikos Kazantzakis, Zorba the Greek, Faber, London, 1977.
[11]

The Perennialists include René Guénon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings, Marco Pallis and Leo Schaya. See, inter alia, Jacob Needleman (ed), The Sword of Gnosis, Arkana, London, 1986, which contains an anthology of their writings, and Martin Lings, The Eleventh Hour, Quinta Essentia, Cambridge, 1987, which lists the majority of their important publications. Aldous Huxley wrote a study of Traditionalism in his The Perennial Philosophy, Chatto and Windus, London, 1946.

[12]

Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd, Penguin, London, 1977. See also Ortega Y Gasset, Revolt of the Masses, Unwin, London, 1972.

[13] Robert Graves, The White Goddess, Faber, London, 1961.
[14] Starhawk, The Spiral Dance, Harper and Row, New York, 1979.
[15] The Bhagavad Gita, ed. Radhakrishnan, Allen and Unwin, London, 1960.
[16] World Conquest through World Government – The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, ed. Victor Marsden, Britons, UK, 1972.
[17] On Corneliu Codreanu see Prince Michael Sturdza, The Suicide of Europe, Western Islands, Boston, USA, 1968, pp. 31-41.
[18]

T. S. Eliot, The Sacred Wood, 1920, repr. Methuen, London, 1960; The Idea of a Christian Society, 1939, repr. Faber, London, 1954; Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, 1948, repr. Faber, London, 1962; On Poetry and Poets, 1957, repr. Faber, London, 1961.

[19] In Selected Essays, 1932, repr. Faber, London, 1958.
[20]

On 1 January 1901 Australia became a federation, the six self-governing colonies into which the continent had previously been divided becoming States of an „indissoluble Federal Commonwealth.“

[21]

Founded in 1957, the National Civic Council grew out of the earlier „Movement“ which had been largely sponsored by elements in the Catholic Church as a means to diminish Communist influence in Australia’s trades unions. Its president, B. A. Santamaria, one of Australia’s most distinguished intellectuals and political commentators, died in 1998. See his books: The Price of Freedom, The Hawthorn Press, Melbourne, 1964; Point of View, The Hawthorn Press, Melbourne, 1969; and Against the Tide, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1981.

[22]

National Action was a small political movement, based partly on the political philosophy of the Spanish Falangist and Catholic Jose Primo de Rivera. It was republican, hostile to non-European immigration and prone to provocative public demonstrations. In the 1990’s its chief spokesman was Michael Brander.

[23]

The Australian League of Rights was founded in 1960 and grew out of earlier state leagues founded to oppose federal nationalisation of banking. Its first national director, Eric D. Butler, was a convert to the Social Credit philosophy of Major Clifford Douglas (1879-1952). The League’s program is Christian, royalist and pro-British. Like Douglas himself, it has been critical of Zionist Jewish influence in modern politics. Regularly defamed in the media and by politicians of all major parties, it has struggled to avoid pariah status. See Clifford H. Douglas, Social Credit, Institute of Economic Democracy, Vancouver, Canada, 1979; The Brief for the Prosecution, Veritas, Western Australia, 1983; and The Development of World Dominion, KRP Publications, London, 1969.

[24] On the important topic of castes see Frithjof Schuon, Castes and Races, Perennial Books, UK, 1981.
[25] Maurice Nicoll, Living Time, Vincent Stuart, London, 1961, p 123; Frithjof Schuon, Understanding Islam, 1963, repr. Unwin, London, 1981, pp 71-78.
[26] On Chinese tradition see René Guénon, The Great Triad, Quinta Essentia, Cambridge, UK, 1991.
[27] Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Penguin, London, 1975.
[28] On ancient Egyptian culture see the works of René Schwaller de Lubicz, including The Temple in Man, Inner Traditions, USA, 1981.
[29] Ronald Conway, The Great Australian Stupor, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1971; Land of the Long Weekend, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1978.
[30] Gordon Rattray Taylor, Sex in History, Thames and Hudson, London, 1953.
[31]

See I. C. F. Spry, QC, „The Hypocrisy of Aboriginal Claims,“ National Observer (PO Box 751, North Melbourne, Victoria 3051, Australia), No. 45, Winter 2000, pp 6-10. Dr Spry writes, inter alia: „The regrettable and pervasive dishonesty of the Aboriginal lobby can now be seen almost every day in newspaper reports. The so-called ‘stolen generation’ claims provide regular examples. […the lobby] is continuing to promote extreme results under the guise of ‘reconciliation’. In effect, the approach is to say ‘we should be „reconciled“ with you’ but ‘we will be reconciled only if you provide us with all that we demand, including (and especially) large amounts of money, a treaty favouring us and so on…“

[32] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, Unwin, London, 1995; The Lord of the Rings, Harper Collins, London, 1992.
[33] Terry Goodkind, Wizard’s First Rule, Gollancz, London, 2001, is the first of the series.
[34] Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things, Arlington House, New York, 1969, pp 109-124.
[35]

See Nigel Jackson, „The Queen’s Justice and the International Criminal Court“ (speech to the Australian League of Rights National Seminar, October 2002), M. E. A., PO Box 248, East Caulfield, Victoria 3145, Australia.

[36] See Mouni Sadhu, In Days of Great Peace, Allen and Unwin, London, 1952.
[37] See Martin Lings, A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century – Shaykh Ahmad-al-Alawi, Allen and Unwin, London, 1973.
[38]

On the French Revolution see Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, 1919, repr. Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorne, CA 90250, USA, 1969; World Revolution, 1921, repr. Britons, UK, 1971, pp 13-93; and Spacious Days, Hutchinson, London, 1949, pp 185-191.

[39] On communism/bolshevism see P. D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1950, pp 344-345; Letters from Russia 1919, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1978.
[40] George Orwell, Animal Farm, Penguin, London, 1989; Nineteen Eighty-four, Penguin, London, 1975.
[41]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Red Wheel, comprising (to date) August 1914, The Bodley Head, London, 1989, and November 1916, Jonathan Cape, London, 1999. Two further volumes in the series are to follow.

[42] See Pieter Geyl, Napoleon: For and Against, 1949, repr. Peregrine Books, London, 1965.
[43] Paul Keating, an ardent republican of Irish extraction, was Prime Minister of Australia and Leader of the Australian Labour Party from 1991 to 1996.
[44]

Sir William Deane was a Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1982 to 1995 and Governor-General of Australia from 1996 to 2001. During his vice-regal phase he politicised the office of Governor-General in an unprecedented manner, expressing left-liberal views on sensitive topics such as Aboriginal affairs and immigration.

[45] On metanoia, often mistranslated as „repentance,“ see Maurice Nicoll, The Mark, Robinson and Watkins, London, 1973, p 207.
[46]

On Dr Salazar see Hugh Kay, Salazar and Modern Portugal, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1968. Also recommended are the books by his Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Minister, Dr Franco Nogueira, Portugal and the United Nations, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1961, and The Third World, Johnson, London, 1967.

[47] Sir Walter Scott, Quentin Durward, Collins, London, 1951; Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir Nigel, Wordsworth, UK, 1994.
[48] Ernst Jünger, The Storm of Steel, Chatto and Windus, London, 1929, repr. 1942.
[49]

Martin Boyd (Australian novelist, 1893-1972), The Cardboard Crown, Penguin, Melbourne, 1984; A Difficult Young Man, Penguin, Melbourne, 1988; Outbreak of Love, Lansdowne Press, Melbourne, 1976; When Blackbirds Sing, Lansdowne Press, Melbourne, 1972.

[50] On George Ivanovich Gurdjieff (1877?-1949) see James Moore, Gurdjieff, Element, UK, 1991.
[51] See Robin Waterfield, René Guénon and the Future of the West, Aquarian Press, London, 1987.
[52] Frithjof Schuon, The Transcendent Unity of Religions, Theosophical Publishing House, USA, 1984.
[53]

James McAuley (Australian poet and Catholic intellectual), The End of Modernity, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1959, pp 8 -16; Monk Damascene Christensen (Russian Orthodox priest), Not of This World, Father Seraphim Rose Foundation, PO Box 1656, Forestville, CA 95436, USA, 1997, pp 60-84 and 997-999.

[54]

See Robin Waterfield, op. cit. (note 51), pp 130-131 and René Guénon, The Lord of the World, Coombe Springs Press, UK, 1983.

[55] Idries Shah, The Sufis, Star Books, London, 1977; „The King’s Hawk and the Owls,“ in The Hundred Tales of Wisdom, Octagon Press, London, 1978.
[56]

See P. D. Ouspensky, „Christianity and the New Testament“ in A New Model of the Universe, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, Co. Ltd., London, 1931, repr 1938.

[57] Albert Camus, The Outsider, Penguin, London, 1974; The Plague, Penguin, London, 1976.
[58] René Guénon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, Sophia Perennis, New York, 1995, Chapters 30, 36, 38 and 39.
[59]

Sheila is a colloquial Australian term for a girl or woman, probably derived from Ireland, where feminine carvings from ancient times, known as shelagh-na-gigs, are common.

[60]

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Penguin, London, 1961. See also Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche (2 vols.), Harper San Francisco, USA, 1991.

[61] Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints, Ace Books, Grosset and Dunlap, New York, 1977.
[62]

P.D. Ouspensky, op. cit. (notes 39, 56), and Tertium Organum: The Third Canon of Thought, 1921, repr. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1957; The Fourth Way, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1957; Talks with a Devil, Turnstone Press, London, 1972.

[63] Arthur Guirdham, Obsession, Neville Spearman, London, 1972.