by Jan Lis
Julius Evola, in his works, criticized the ideas of the Third Way, such as fascism and National Socialism, for their “plebeian” character. It is hard to disagree that this critique was, to a significant extent, justified, since Third Way ideologies often diminished the importance of aristocracy, sometimes degenerating into proletarian rhetoric. There is no doubt that elevating the working class to the status of the societal foundation is, in essence, an anti-traditional and modernist ideological construct.
But is Evola himself free from this modernism, and to what extent do his own views correspond to the Indo-European tradition, especially regarding so-called “naturalism”? Mircea Eliade, in his critique of Evola, noted that in his writings the baron reduces the entire tradition exclusively to metaphysics, denying the significance of the land, language, and “homeland,” treating the latter as “matriarchal matter” of no value. In reality, however, the Indo-European tradition contains no opposition between matter and metaphysics; it is a holistic system in which these elements interact rather than confront each other. This does not cancel the hierarchy, where metaphysics stands above land, language, and other attributes of ethnic identity, but it does not reduce their value either.
For the Baltic peoples, with whom I identify and have the honor of representing
a formula denying the value of land and language is inconceivable. This is especially true considering that Northeastern Europe preserved a much larger portion of Indo-European archaic elements relative to Western Europe: all decline tendencies, from the adoption of Christianity to the arrival of political and economic liberalism, reached our lands centuries later than in the West (where they originated). The Lithuanian language is one of the most valuable sources for Indo-European reconstructions and exhibits remarkable conservatism, comparable to Ancient Greek and Sanskrit.
In fact, Evola’s critique of naturalism extracts entire portions from the holistic worldview of Indo-European peoples and represents his own idea or, at best, Advaita Vedanta (a much later interpretation of Hinduism), rather than a genuine continuation of any Indo-European tradition, let alone a “primordial” one, if such ever existed.
Another highly controversial idea of Evola
is his apologetics of the “radical individual,” detached from the lowest material world, the nation, the people, and the tribe, which Evola considers manifestations of the above-described naturalism. This is motivated by the advent of Kali Yuga and the futility of political struggle amidst universal decay. The proposed solution is the formula of “being true to oneself” and concentration on personal knowledge and self-development. All this would be acceptable if it were the work of another American dilettante, writing in the purely liberal spirit of “be true to yourself”, rather than a mastodon of European traditionalism who declared this very liberalism almost the final stage of the apocalypse, a harbinger of Ragnarök.
Traditional cultures, both in the West and among Europeans in the broadest sense, are completely unfamiliar with the formula of the “radical individual” declaring themselves the center of the universe. In almost any tradition, a human is not a modern “enlightened personality” freed from all attributes of collective identity, but rather part of a holistic community, fully defined by their relationship to supra-individual structures. No “personality” can stand above the whole society, tribe, or state, especially if they belong to the aristocracy. Ultimately, aristocratic thinking is characterized by anti-egoism and even irrationality, by sacrifices for goals whose value vastly exceeds that of an individual life.
The advent of the Iron Age was no secret in the religion of Indo-Europeans, as the period of decline is described in many sacred texts, from the Rigveda to the Scandinavian sagas, yet there are no calls for “retreat into the forest of the radical individual.” Despite its incompatibility with traditional worldviews, such an archetype of behavior is strikingly close to the modern atomic individual, who lives according to essentially the same bourgeois principles but does not burden themselves with justifying their way of life through “kshatriya” arguments.
Surprisingly, the ideas of solidarity and corporatism
characteristic of Third Way ideologies despite their modernist backdrop, align much more closely with the holistic nature of Indo-European societies — both Romano-Germanic and cultic peoples of the West, as well as Baltic, Finno-Ugric, and Slavic peoples of the East. The unification of closely related tribes based on shared religious-mythological beliefs is an integral part of our common tradition and the only genuine task of a true state. The highest form of state in a traditional value system is the Empire, which unites logoi while preserving their uniqueness — a point on which Evola does not disagree. However, the manifestation of logos and the sacred occurs precisely through language and land, which Evola does not recognize as values, and through the participation of all estates in the hierarchical structure of the people, which he rejects.
It should be emphasized that Evola was not without critics from the intellectual Right. Alain de Benoist noted that: “Evola is an example of metaphysical individualism, lacking any real social structure, and his concept of the ‘man standing above history’ goes beyond tradition” (Alain de Benoist, Vu de droite). A similar observation was made by Giorgio Locchi, who stated: “The result of the political application of Evolian tradition was unsuccessful: metaphysical disengagement or a volitional adventure disconnected from collective tradition” (Giorgio Locchi, Sul senso della storia). These assessments confirm that criticism of Evola’s radical individualism comes not only from modern liberal positions but also from the very Right, which values collectivity and the integration of the individual into a holistic system.
This text is not an attempt to topple the authority of Baron Evola, but a call to distinguish purely personal ideas from the real content of European tradition, even
when it comes to the works of steadfast authorities.