Julius Evola: the absurdity of democracy laid bare


About the principle of representation and the concept of a parliament, today we have grown accustomed to associating them exclusively with the system of absolute democracy, based on universal suffrage and the principle of one man one vote.

This basis is absurd and indicates more than anything else the individualism that, combined with the pure criterion of quantity and of number, defines modern democracy. We say individualism in the bad sense, because here we are dealing with the individual as an abstract, atomistic and statistical unity, not as a ‘person’, because the quality of a person – that is, a being that has a specific dignity, a unique quality and differentiated traits – is obviously negated and offended in a system in which one vote is the equal of any other, in which the vote of a great thinker, a prince of the Church, an eminent jurist or sociologist, the commander of an army, and so on has the same weight, measured by counting votes, as the vote of an illiterate butcher’s boy, a halfwit, or the ordinary man in the street who allows himself to be influenced in public meetings, or who votes for  whoever pays him.

The fact that we can talk about ‘progress’ in reference to a society where we have reached the level of considering all this as normal is one of the many absurdities that, perhaps, in better times will be the cause of amazement or amusement.

 From Fascism Viewed from the Right by Julius Evola, page 71.   

Screenshot 2020-01-20 at 21.48.30

Evola in early 1940s

Julius Evola (1898-1974) was Italy’s foremost traditionalist philosopher, as well as a metaphysician, social thinker and activist. Evola was an authority on the world’s esoteric traditions and one of the greatest critics of modernity. He wrote extensively on the ancient civilisations of both East and West and the world of Tradition, and was also a critic of the political and spiritual movements of his own time from a traditional perspective.

 



Categories: Democracy, Julius Evola, Politics, Unpopular views

27 replies

  1. Very similar to Socrates’ critique of democracy and his advocating of the need for universal education of politics for its citizens before voting.

    There is much to agree with here, of course, with respect to our own parliamentary democracy as well as the election of Trump due to the electoral college rather than by popular vote which was won by Clinton.

    Perhaps a more viable democratic process is not too dissimilar to what parliamentary democracy instills: people in constituencies vote for a representative but that this individual/council have greater powers of governance as opposed to only contributing in competition to other larger/smaller constituencies which may have greater influence due to location/wealth. This has been a particular problem in the north of England and has been answered somewhat with the establishment of mayors and is currently the debate in Scotland regarding independence.

    In conclusion, I think it’s important to defend a person’s freedom to be involved in decisions which affect them while ensuring that said involvement is more meaningful which while doesn’t entirely answer Evola’s critique in relation to personhood, it is closer than what we have while still being realistic about both the times we live in and what is the more probable, positive action toward what is, perhaps, a fairer system.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Muslims beware of the fascist filth.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Julius Evola was stupid. There is a reason why everyone’s vote ought to count equal:
    Imagine they were not equal and some group’s vote would count more than anothers.
    The conequence would be that politicians would then preferably cater to the interests of that privileged group whose votes count more.
    It would effectively work like corruption.

    Like

    • Some people count more. We are not created equal. Inequality is the rule.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Paul

        Exactly. If I control the countries economy and have 1,000+ families depend on me, why should my vote be equal to Joey the politically uninformed laborer?

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Some people count more.”

        How do you measure how much more they count more than others?
        Answer:
        You never measure their worth as intrinsic to themselves, but only in terms of how valuable they are TO OTHERS, thereby implicitly affirming the democratic, egalitarian principle.

        stewjo004 writes:
        “Exactly. If I control the countries economy and have 1,000+ families depend on me, why should my vote be equal to Joey the politically uninformed laborer”

        So the only reason why they count more is that the welfare of 1000+ families depend on them. They have worth only in relation to others.
        The democratic, egalitarian principle is implicit in the presumption that someone is more important the more people’s welfare depend on them.

        But there is no reason to give their vote a higher weight, if those 1000+ families who depend on them have a vote themselves. Then they can simply vote for their own interests.

        Like

      • @ Das

        Oh no there’s a variety of reasons this was just a small example. Ill use another not reliant upon upon others. My opinion is informed another person is not. Why should we have equal decision making skills? The oppossing side does not know what they’re talking about. Hate to tell you but most people are stupid (as shown by the many missionaries on the blog)

        Regarding 1000+ families depending on me I ABSOLUTELY have more weight in decision making. For example, 1000+ families vote to move minimum wage to 50$ an hour. Yeah…you all agreed but just destroyed the economy because you didn’t know what you’re talking about.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If a scholar gives an opinion on a subject he is an expert in, his opinion will be worth more than some random tom, dick and harry on the street. They can give their opinion but it won’t have the weight of that of a scholar and so their opinions will be considered less important. In voting this is almost backwards because all opnions (ie votes) have same value. Why? It makes no sense

        Liked by 2 people

      • Well said. Democracy says the expert’s opinion is worth the same as that of a jackass. Crazy!

        Liked by 2 people

    • Politicians already cater to certain kinds of people over others whether it be political/social/religious/celebrities because doing so is a better way to win than trying to convince everyone; you don’t need to convince everyone to win an election and you certainly don’t have to possess the better argument to convince people.

      Our latest election in the UK demonstrates this as all it took was a promise to ‘get Brexit done’ and character assassinates the leader of the opposition despite said individuals own poor track record when it comes to character.

      Truth is that in this day and age misinformation is ripe and folk are easily manipulated by what the media tells them to believe and social media only further fuels the fire. The current way of doing things is not adapting well to the modern world and its vulnerabilities are showing like never before.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Not surprising how Williams acts as anti extremist whistleblower, while promoting the guru mastermind of neofascist terrorist groups.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: