1,514 words
Trans. anonymous
The problem of the origins, the foundations and the future destiny of the global hegemony of the white race is, of course, among the most exciting issues of today. We have in our hands a newly published large volume by Wahrhold Drascher, who, thoroughly knowledgeable, comprehensively informed and with an acute historical sense, takes on precisely this subject (Die Vorherrschaft der weissen Rasse, Berlin, 1936). We shall provide an outline of his book, on account of the interest which, as we shall soon see, his views may have for Italian readers.
How was it possible for a group of peoples — bound to one another by only very relative ties — to subject the rest of the world to their will for centuries, involving the entire world in their own destiny? Many are tempted explain this unique event in world history in purely materialistic terms. Drascher, however, easily proves such explanations to be one-sided and inadequate. If it was only a matter of physical, military and technical superiority, it is, in fact, hardly conceivable how Cortez and Pizarro, along with only a handful of adventurers, succeeded in toppling gigantic empires, or how the English, with not even two hundred thousand men, have been able to keep no less than three hundred and fifty million Hindus at bay. Moreover, we must not confuse the latest phase of a dominion already organized on solid economic, administrative, military and, properly speaking, ”colonial” foundations, with the original forms of domination and conquest, conquests that were realized with no predetermined plan, and indeed even without any real economic intentions. The spirit of adventure, the love of risk and the unknown, the sheer pleasure of domination and predation, the desire for great distances were, more than any rational, mercantile, and utilitarian motive, at the origins of white expansion, and were inseparably bound to specific character traits: to a hard will, to coldness, to tenacity, to contempt for life and for death, to an unshakable feeling of superiority.
This is the first point: moral qualities, and not purely material elements. Regarding the feeling of white superiority, Drascher states that it was not based on guns and warships, or even on legal principles. Rather, it made use of all of those things with the naturalness of men willing to use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals. The true origins of this feeling of superiority are not rational, they are rooted in the very substance of the race, in the spirit of the blood. This is why even when the various peoples of the white race found themselves in the most bitter conflicts, nonetheless, in their behavior, their way of being, of acting and of asserting themselves, they appeared to other peoples as a single family.
This, however, is not all. In addition to the material elements, in addition to the moral elements themselves, and perhaps more important than them, there is an element of the highest, almost of a metaphysical order, which Drascher calls the “spirit of the oceanic age.” It is a kind of obscure will to the infinite and the unconditioned, which stands in the most intimate relationship to the conception of the world of humanism and the Renaissance, becoming more powerful and developed through the experience of the ocean and the new conquest of the seas, which was taking place at precisely that time. It was the “oceanic spirit” that constituted the deepest spiritual core and the innermost impulse that uniquely animated and oriented the racial qualities of the white peoples, launching them on the path of the conquest of the world, principally through the previously unknown great ocean routes.
Drascher writes:
The sea, that vast surface, free and open in every direction, has no end at any point: beyond the horizon, which you thought you had reached, another opens itself, drawing you towards new distances, pushing you always beyond, towards infinity. Its element is mobile, restless. At no point does it invite you to linger, to dwell, always pushing you to continue towards a new goal. And when you get there, it does not give you peace. Each wave is calling you, seems to urge you to forget and leave what you already know and not settle for what you already have, but to attempt and dare new things. The sea is, in the highest sense, the idea of limitlessness, which it embodies more than any other aspect of nature. It is serious, powerful, tragic, it is a hostile force that always wants to be tamed again, always ready to destroy you if you do not prove yourself to be stronger than it. And it is free, in the deepest sense of the word. On its shores, you can build cities and fortresses, but you cannot contain it and “own it.” It “belongs” essentially to he who navigates it, dominating it.
In these terms, the experience of the sea gives rise to the spirit of a new European epoch, to the driving force of a universal impulse, to the soul of a new epic and adventurous cycle. The ancient formula: vivere non necesse navigare necesse est [living is not necessary but navigation is], here takes on the fullness of its meaning. Navigation and conquest, derived from the original Mediterranean spirit, were gradually adopted by a series European peoples, from the Renaissance onward, as the watchword of world conquest and the consolidation of the hegemony of the white race.
But then, almost like the fatal cyclical process that every organism is subject to, the heroic tension and the original will to the infinite little by little went into dormancy. The epic phase of expansion was followed by the economic, mercantile phase. The first conquerors, surrounded by an almost mystical prestige, were replaced by highly organized companies trading in manufactured goods and specializing in the rational use of raw materials. Military power, especially naval power (as in the typical case of England), was more or less reduced to performing the function of the armed guard of economic hegemonism. The freedom on the seas ended up becoming synonymous with the freedom of British commerce. In addition, the white West itself began to formulate ideologies that were destined to turn back on it and seriously damage its prestige in the eyes of the colored peoples, finally creating the conditions of a new spirit of independence and revolt among the latter.
This is not the place to delve into such considerations, which, moreover, Drascher himself discusses only incompletely. We will only mention, for example, that the egalitarian social principle has lead to the absurdity of legal parity between white nations and mestizo nations or African savages; that a poorly understood and demagogic nationalism has become, in Asia, a dangerous source of insurrectionary ferment, while Bolshevik-Marxist propaganda calls for the revolt of colonized peoples against whites, claiming that the latter have the same role with regard to the former that capitalist exploiters and oppressors have with regard to the international proletariat. Here, however, it is more important to discuss consequences, recognizing that, in one way or another, the principle of European hegemony really is in danger today, and that the urgent problem of its restoration is not only material, but also, and above all, spiritual. There is very little point in resorting to external remedies. Only a return to origins, i.e., to the original attitude that brought whites to world domination — after the elimination of all the detritus of a soulless civilization devoid of ideals, a civilization that worships the idol of mere economy and is founded on the principle of leveling democracy — will allow us to maintain our supremacy. And that means reviving the oceanic symbol, reawakening the will to the infinite and limitless, fueled – so to speak – by the ocean wind, the freedom of enormous distances. This spirit, however, must be mastered by firm discipline and translated into strength hardened like steel.
It is no accident that Italy, which only now is fully entering into a cycle of conquest and colonial empire-building, has also proved its capacity for such a spirit, while in other countries, those forces have for a long time and over the span of many generations been lying dormant, decimated or supplanted by other, lower forces. Thus, in this respect, too, Fascist Italy is now a symbol, and has defined the terms of a European alternative. Those nations that will be incapable of following her in accomplishing the miracle of a renewal and a revival in the sense just indicated, are destined to be swept away by the tide that is gradually swelling among the races they once dominated. Whatever the power of those nations may still appear to be today, it is merely the legacy of a spirit that is now dead. Only the other nations, who will answer the call of fascist “youthfulness” and bring back the deep forces of their race to new epic heights, and to a new spirituality permeated with the drive towards limitless, will be part of the new front called upon to defend and reaffirm Western world supremacy.
Originally published in Corriere Padano, January 6, 1937.
7 Comments
It is interesting how Evola celebrates Faustianism here whereas in his more principle works he clearly condemns it as a symptom of the modern irrational fixation with ‘becoming’ as opposed to ‘being’. What gives?
I was thinking something similar, that I recall elsewhere Evola agrees with Guenon that the Renaissance was a degeneration from the Middle Ages. However, here he seems to be stating Drascher’s view, not necessarily his own.
Evola seems to always be looking for elements of nobility and transcendence even in the most degenerate ages and milieus. In that sense, maybe he was capable of holding both views of this situation – that while the overall arc of history was descending, the spirit that invigorated European man in his conquest of the seas and continents is nonetheless worthy of praise.
A very good answer. Yes, ‘becoming’ (or ‘change’) is secondary to being, but that does not mean that there are not different forms and grades of ‘becoming’. This is perhaps related to the idea of sub-cycles, the possibility that within the greater Kali Yuga/Age of Iron there exist localized upswings and phases of re-traditionalization.
For Evola, the Western path to transcendence is heroic and active, rather than contemplative. Unlike Guénon, Evola does not reject the “activism” of Western man in the name of a primacy of contemplation. Instead, he sees Western “activism” as having degenerated and become pathological as a result of having been detached from transcendence and reduced to a purely material plane.
A pendant to this article could be “Il navigare come simbolo eroico” (“Seafaring as a Heroic Symbol”), published in 1933, which deals with seafaring quests in myth. There, Evola makes explicit was is only implicit here: that the sea, and water in general, is a symbol of Becoming, the realm of instability and contingency, birth and death. Since seafaring, on the other hand, is the act of braving the element of the sea, and overcoming it, the seafarer is a symbol of the initiate. Evola writes: “The seafarer appeared as a synonym of the hero and the initiate, as a symbol of he who, having left behind mere ‘living,’ boldly wills a ‘more than life,’ in the sense of a state beyond decay and passion.”
Perhaps this analogy is overly literal, but I can’t help but think about our exploration of space. We sent men the furthest they have been in 1969, and probably our actual drive for exploring the unknown had peaked even before then. To think we haven’t sent actual men to explore further in the last 47 years is quite depressing, and I wonder if our spirit for limitless exploration and epic heights will ever return.
I see it as him praising the underlying spirit leading Western man towards such overseas conquests, not necessarily how it turned out in practice. If that spirit were to be revived today that would happen in a different context, external domination is one thing, but it is primarily an inner attitude that Evola is looking for. Compare this to the alleged “traditionalist” Dugin who vilifies the same spirit, besides being contradictory since Russia would not be the same without having opened up to wider a wider European influence by way of the Baltic Sea during the reign of Peter the Great. The adventurous spirit described here is not hostile to any “heartland”, they are perfectly capable of working together for common aims. The sentiments of “land dwellers” appears as a lowly resentment if anything.
The problem with “separatism, not supremacism” is that the idea that ethnic groups could encounter one another without some sort of relationship of dominance and hegemony being established is not realistic. As Evola points out in this article, anti-imperialism transfers the ideas of equality, democracy and human rights to the relationship between ethnic groups and nations. The idea of equality is as illusory and chimerical on that level as it is on any other. I can only understand the idea of “separatism, not supremacism” as a tactic made necessary by the marginal status and powerlessness of white ethnic nationalists today. Supremacist claims would only be seen as a provocation justifying repressive measures. Ethno-pluralism at least can at least appear to claim moral legitimacy in the terms of the dominant (hegemonic) egalitarian and democratic ideology.
Let’s not forget that the civilizations toppled by Cortez and Pizarro were empires, and hence themselves “hegemonic” in their relations with surrounding ethnic groups. The only situation where an absence of domination and hegemony of ethnic groups over others is conceivable is in the case of very tiny, primitive tribal groups in remote, inaccessible geographical regions. This is only because of the primitive social organisation of such groups, their absence of social stratification and hence of even a rudimentary state.
The question, then, is “whose hegemony?” The fall of Western hegemony will perhaps take place, but would only be replaced by other hegemonies: for example, by Russian hegemony in Eurasia. Perhaps other hegemonies would be preferable to the current one, that is of course quite possible. Today, American imperialist hegemony essentially consists of military power in the service of a small (often Jewish) elite of the super-rich, a financial elite without real loyalties to any particular nation (except perhaps Israel).