Black cannot cover up Evola’s other colors.

The curious, sensitive, rare artist Giuseppe Salvatori sends me a letter in red letters (it says “found on the Internet”) by Julius Evola, dated February 3, 1963, addressed to Mr. Freda, who could be Franco Freda, known as “The Editor” , found guilty of subversion for creating the group “Ar”, consisting of supporters of the neo-fascist, traditionalist and neo-Nazi publishing house Edizioni di Ar (abbreviation for “Aryan Aristocracy”, he founded in 1963 and then led. It seems to me, and should be Salvatori found it very interesting because it engages in a grueling polemic that periodically returns, like an illiberal (and therefore anomalous) obsession, every time the philosopher’s name comes up again.

This happened with a furious article by Mirella Scerri on the sidelines of my planned exhibition of an Evola painting in a shopping center in Rovereto. Serry wrote: “This needs to be said and remembered. Anyone who organizes an exhibition dedicated to Evola, an artist unknown to the general public, has an ethical duty, I repeat ethical, to tell who Evola was, to describe the artist, the politician, the person. Being a brilliant avant-garde artist, why did Evola, a few years later, place himself on the opposite side of the most modern trends? Was he an opportunist, given that Europe was dominated by totalitarianism? Why did he declare his teacher Tzaru, whom he loved and whom he personally met in Paris, to be a Jew who should be sent along with millions of other Jews to be exterminated? Moreover, Evola is not a redeemed man, he never changed his shirt and always remained true to himself. In the 1960s, when he began to paint again, he clarified that he had never been a follower of Hitler, but rather of Himmler (…).”

Vain and unfounded fears. Everything was already explained in the exhibition presentation. From here arose an endless controversy that against Evola even denied interest in his paintings, the first abstract paintings in Italy, between 1915 and 1921, that is, before fascism. Stupid people of all kinds, indifferent to history, intervened to judge pictures of inevitable interest, until Giampiero Mughini suddenly appeared to silence them with certain and, on the other hand, important words. The controversy reignited in late August with another moving tale of intolerance and censorship. It was Nedo Vinzio, President of Anpi Valle d’Aosta, who spoke with unjustified arrogance: “Today’s meeting is taking place in one of the most active valleys of the entire period of resistance. For example, in the Lys Valley there is the Museum of the Resistance or the Aurora Bell, which every day marks the birth of the Resistance movement by ringing at 9:15 a.m., the time the first shot was fired.” Despite this glorious, glossy precedent, Gressoney-la-Trinite made available the municipal council chamber on September 2 for the meeting “Between Philosophy and Mountaineering in Gressoney: Julius Evola.” The meeting on Evola was not organized by the municipal administration, but by Dr. Angelo Parrella, a graduate of the Faculty of Philosophy. “He asked to be allowed to hold a conference he organized on the topic of mountaineering and related philosophy in a public place in the city, ensuring that the event would be non-political and exclusively literary in nature,” the mayor said. Gressoney-la-Trinite, Alessandro Giraud.

In response, it was decided to organize the original Gad Lerner conference, I believe, there on vacation. “We are here,” Lerner said, “to express civil protest. I was speechless when I was sent a poster about the convening, in a public place in the municipality of the Italian Republic, of a conference dedicated to Julius Evola, in which he is presented as one of the greatest thinkers of the Italian twentieth century (…).” “Julius Evola,” added historian Alberto Cavallion – wrote extensively about the denigration of America, he said that it was the decay of Western civilization that continued from Judaism to jazz, which he himself called black music. He defined Ella Fitzgerald not only as black, but also as a shapeless, screaming mass flesh.” Again Lerner: “We are dealing with the one who wrote the preface to the Italian translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a false document created by the Tsarist secret police! He knew that it was an invention created to incite hatred of the Jews, but he said, which recognizes a certain authenticity in the condemnation of this predatory race from which the world must be cleansed. This man saw in the SS a new order of knighthood. ” The same forbidden arguments as Serry.

The letter found by Salvatori debunks all these accusations, and also denies the risk of Evola’s exaggerated influence on new generations. In Evola’s words, everything is clear, even the risk of unauthorized exploitation by a character who, to repeat the cliché, was considered a follower of Evola. Here is the text: “Dear Sir. Freda, I received your letter and thank you for the attention you paid to my case. If I view initiatives like the one you tell me about with sympathy, if only for their demonstrative value, I still don’t think I can satisfy your desire; the experience I have acquired advises me not to join any formations that are even indirectly involved in political struggle. My perspective today is what my latest book, Riding the Tiger, has to offer. It was during this period that it occurred to me to republish the magazine that I had already edited in 1930 and which was already causing a lot of noise, La Torre, but with a provocative subtitle: “The Fortnightly Journal of Reactionary and Antisocial Thought.” It would be a purely aggressive and subversive action, non-conformist in every sense and on every level, without any constructive intention: like right-wing anarchists, in the style of Papini’s 1914 magazine Lacerba, naturally with a completely different doctrinal background. , albeit silently. But it seems that there are no conditions, especially material ones, for the implementation of such an initiative. With best wishes and respect. J. Evola.”

Such a letter, in its simplicity, is sufficient to exclude the danger of Evola’s thoughts, his exclusion from all exploitation, his alienation from any political formation and his resignation. All this, with Evola’s clear testimony and direct answer to, at the time, the most dangerous man for the neo-Nazi revival, dispels Serry’s fears and Gad Lerner’s intellectualist delusions. It is still impressive, and it happened, si parva licet, even with General Vannacci, that another thought, remaining within the limits of words, determines such disproportionate reactions, as if society could actually be impressed and disturbed by an abstract, non-reducible concept to one thought, but, admittedly, not suitable for translation into political action. The real danger lies in this totalitarianism of right ideas. With great simplicity, Evola showed that he was aware of this to such an extent that he refused any, even unrealistic, exploitation. And honestly point this out to the arrogant Frida, inspired by subversive intentions, rejected by Evola with the obvious clarification “without any constructive intent.” Easier than that! “Not in my name,” Evola tells him directly and simply. All you have to do is accept the arrogance of those who consider you dangerous just because you have different thoughts. Without even doing anything.

Source link

Leave a Comment