Translator's Preface

Rivolta contro il mondo moderno was first published in 1934, and followed by later editions in 1951 and in 1970. Two works with similar themes that influenced Evola were Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West (1918) and René Guénon's The Crisis of the Modern World (1927), both of which Evola translated into Italian.

Evola agreed with Spengler's criticism of the progressive and evolutionist myth and with his rejection of the modern "linear" understanding of history. Spengler argued that there is no such thing as one global civilization, but rather a plurality of civilizations, following one another according to the cyclical pattern of birth-growth-decline. Spengler often spoke of the aging of cultures in terms of the succession of the four seasons; the winter of our contemporary Western world is characterized by "pure intellectuality," by the advent of machinery, the power of money, the government of the masses, growing skepticism and materialism. Evola, who had adopted the cyclical view of history proper to Tradition, agreed with Spengler's assessment of our times but criticized him for failing to recognize the metaphysical nature of the cyclical laws and for lacking, like Nietzsche, any transcendent and traditional reference points. Evola also did not deem satisfactory Spengler's distinction between culture and civilization, the former being the early stage, the latter being the crepuscular phase of a historical cycle; in Revolt Against the Modern World Evola emphasized the irreconciliable antithesis, or rather the dualism between the two terms.

René Guénon's The Crisis of the Modern World was a very important influence on Evola's Revolt. In his work, Guénon discussed the relationship between action and contemplation, criticized democracy and individualism, and argued that we are living in the "Dark Age" (Kali Yuga). Evola picked up these themes and developed them further, supplying several historical examples to back up his thesis. While Evola is undoubtedly indebted to Guénon for several seminal ideas, it would be wrong to assume that he is just the Italian epigone of Guénon, with whom he disagreed on matters such as the correct relationship between action and contemplation, the role of Catholicism as a future catalyst of traditionalist forces, and the hierarchical relationship between priesthood and regality in traditional civilizations.

In Revolt Against the Modern World Evola intended to offer some guidelines¹ for a morphology of civilizations and for a philosophy of history, as well as to advocate a psychologically and intellectually detached stance toward the modern world, which he regarded as decadent. In Revolt the reader will find strong criticism of the notions of equality and democracy, which in turn led Evola to praise the role that the caste system, feudalism, monarchy, and aristocracy have played in history. Regardless of whether one agrees with these views or not, the fact remains that a mere sociopolitical assessment of Revolt would totally miss the essence and the scope of Evola's thought.

The content of this text, as well as the rest of Evola's work, have been reviewed mainly from a political perspective.² Unfortunately, as I have said elsewhere,³ the spiritual and metaphysical foundations of Evola's thought still need to be subjected to a thorough review. Evola is not first and foremost a right-wing, reactionary political thinker, but rather a leading representative of that Esoteric Spirituality that has always existed in many forms in or alongside every civilization, age and religious tradition; therefore, when Evola deals with socio-political issues, he is just following the premises of his metaphysical and religious convictions, and not the other way around. This is why in order to understand Evola fully it is first necessary to confront his suggestive religious thought. It has rightly been said:

Esotericism is present today more than ever. In the modern era, its tenacious permanence appears as a counterpart to our scientific and secularized vision of the world, but it would be simplistic and mistaken to explain its longevity by a need to react against the reigning episteme. More than a reaction, it is perhaps one of the possible forms assumed by one of the two poles of the human spirit in order to actualize itself, namely mythic thought, the other pole being what is called rational thought, which in the West is modeled on a logic of the Aristotelian type.⁴

The reader will notice that spiritual and religious themes are found throughout the book, such as a critique of theism and of Christianity, which Evola had formulated a few years earlier in a harsher tone in his Imperialismo Pagano (1927); the endorsement of the cyclical view of time and the rejection of the Judeo-Christian linear view⁵; the relationship between action and contemplation; views on the afterlife,⁶ initiation, and asceticism; the clash between the spiritual and religious beliefs of various civilizations (it does not take long to find out where Evola's sympathy lies); transcendence; and Tradition.

Evola's negative assessment of empirical reality and his intense dislike of common man (the charges of "misogyny,'.'"misanthropy," and "solipsism,"⁷ are just labels behind which is usually found a psychological attitude rather than an articulated metaphysical weltanschauung such as Evola's, as his readers themselves will see) and of ordinary, everyday life, led him to espouse what Italo Mancini rebuffed as "ontological classism" and contemptus mundi,⁸ which explains why his political view are so unpopular and controversial. According to Evola, human beings are fundamentally and inherently unequal; they do not have, nor should they enjoy the same dignity and rights and, therefore, a sociopolitical hierarchy is best suited to express the differentiation between human beings. Much could and ought to be said against this view.⁹ In fact, many people will undoubtedly frown upon what they regard as authoritarian, fascist, and reactionary views. But when Evola writes: "there is a mortal nature and an immortal one; there is the superior realm of 'being' and the inferior realm of 'becoming,"'¹⁰ and when he talks about "absolute" values, he is upholding the primacy of Being, just as the pre-Socratic school of the Eleatics, Plato, Plotinus, and medieval Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theology, not to mention many schools of Hinduism and of Buddhism, did before him. And by openly professing a contemptus mundi, he is endorsing the worldview of some of the ascetical paths to enlightenment of the major world religions. Also, if his anthropology upholds a negative and unfavorable view of mankind, is that also not found in Sartre's play No Exit ("Hell is other people"), in much Protestant theology (especially the neo-orthodox views formulated by Karl Barth in his Epistle to the Romans) and in the Buddhist view of human nature?¹¹ Thus, if Evola is "wrong" or guilty of antisocial opinions, he seems to be in good company.

I think that the peculiarity of Revolt lies in three features: rejection of dialogue; affirmation of traditional (not in the usual, conservative sense of the word) and absolute values; and bi-polar thinking (not dualism).

First, by rejecting dialogue with modernity and with fellow human beings, and by denying that dialogue is a means to arrive at the truth (the opposite spirit from that which animated Lacordaire, a follower of Voltaire who eventually became a Dominican friar and who said: "What really matters to me is not to prove my opponent wrong, but to join him in a higher, encompassing truth"), Evola shifts the focus from sociopolitical affairs and interpersonal relationships back to self-questioning ("The unexamined life is not worth living") and to the cultivation of the inner life, away from life's busy and noisy crossroads.¹² This shift is likely to produce an indignant chorus of protests from the ranks of liberal and humanist thinkers in the theological, political, and social arenas: "Immoral!" "Selfish!" "Irresponsible individualism!" In accordance with Socrates' implication that the cultivation of one's soul (ἐπɩμέλεɩα ψυχης) is man's chief duty,¹³ Evola's entire literary production may be regarded as a quest for, and as an exposition of , the means employed in Western and Eastern traditions to accomplish such a noble task.

Secondly, it is refreshing to hear in our day and age somebody saying apertis verbis, "This is the truth," or "These are absolute values," when cultural and ethical relativism, as well as philosophical and religious pluralism, have become the untouchable dogmas and the hermeneutical a priori in contemporary academic discourse. Evola's critics may well disagree, but today there is much hunger for solid, unshakable beliefs, for "objectivity" (to use a word that is much discounted today), and for foundationalist thinking, whether the "high priests" of progress and of dialogue like it or not.¹⁴ Evola's Revolt may be food for such hungry souls.

Finally, Evola's metaphysics, which was greatly influenced by German Idealism (which Evola claimed to have successfully overcome), is based on the notion of "immanent transcendence." This view is opposed to any kind of religious dualism such as that of transcendence vs. immanence, heaven vs. hell, good vs. evil. Instead, Evola espouses a phenomenological dualism that could be characterized as "bipolarism" and in which Tradition is contrasted with modernity, solar civilizations and spirituality with lunar civilization and spirituality, the aristocratic world and values with the plebeian world and values, the caste system with the democratic system, masculine spirituality with feminine spirituality, and enlightenment and liberation with rebirth and permanence in saṁsāra.

The reader of Revolt may or may not agree with the theses contained in this book, but one thing must be acknowledged: Evola's weltanschauung is coherent and holistic. Though it may not be "prophetic," it is an act of remembrance: "Remember that I have remembered / and pass on the tradition."¹⁵

Dept. of Theological Studies

Saint Louis University

Saint Louis, Missouri