Tag: misogyny

  • Patriarchy in Modern Society: Historical Roots and Future Implications

    Reading Time: 11 minutes

    Historical Origins of Patriarchy

    We know the approximate origin of patriarchy in modern society. It appeared in the West approximately 1200 BCE. But the credit goes to Homer (750-700 B.C.) who sang of the struggles of distant heroes. He was the first to describe a patriarchal system. Homer’s poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, told of men who gave law to their children and wives. Next, we have the influence of Solon (630-550 B.C.). Solon’s actions may have advanced patriarchy in a more concrete way than Homer’s poems. He was considered ‘one of the Seven Wise men of Greece’. So, when he built a brothel in Athens and dedicated its profits to the erection of a temple to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, he gave patriarchy cultural and religious standing. However, it was Socrates (c. 470-399 B.C.) who immortalized disdain toward women1 Distain toward women is inseparable from patriarchy.

    I will argue that the first patriarchs were foreign invaders. They married women from the indigenous conquered populations and imposed their own demands on them. This required them to police their new system in order to perserve it.

    These invaders clearly demonstrated that they were rapists and looters and foreign adventurers. They never intended to assimilate into the conquered population. Instead, they remade the known world in their own image. But eventually the outrageousness of their behavior combined with their new positions of authority, motivated them to justify themselves. The Greeks used mythology and philosophy; the Romans used law. They both used misogyny.

    Early Patriarchs Were Synonymous With Warfare

    There were no early patriarchal societies. Patriarchy did not form societies. It destroyed them. The examples of Greece and Rome illustrate this characteristic. 

    Greece

    The context of early patriarchy in Greece was destruction and upheaval caused by the Achaean invasion. It was basically a bloody coup in which the invaders slew entire colleges of priestesses. But interspersed with the carnage were furtive and piecemeal tactics, such as sly manipulation of ancient marriage practices and occassional murder.

    Socrates and his students are our most familiar patriarchal authorities, but they didn’t invent the system. They were following a script written by earlier Greek conquerors. In Socrates’ time, all that was needed was continuing reinforcement and justification. Homer wrote his stories in the fourth century B.C. but he set them around 1200 B.C.  That is how the process worked. His poems were constantly adapted to please aristocratic patriarchal males. They also helped cover up crimes committed in the takeover.

    Rome

    Romulus founded the city of Rome as an asylum for runaway slaves, outlaws, exiles, and criminals from across Italy. There were almost no women there; the outlaws and outsiders were all male. So, the Romans invited a neighboring tribe to a festival and forcably kidnapped their daughters. This is known today as the Rape of the Sabine Women. The Roman home was treated like a conquered territory because that’s what it was. 

    The Modern Evolution of Patriarchy

    Today, the politically correct version of these stories are all that most people know. They are what comes up first in a Google search. This illustrates the modern evolution of patriarchy. We swim in a patriarchal ocean…

    Greece

    If you were to do a Google search for the question, Did Theseus conquere Crete?, you would get the official story. Theseus was sent to Crete as captive youth in tribute to the Minotaur. He successfully slew the beast, stopped the tribute, and escaped Crete with King Minos’s daughter, Ariadne.

    However, if you supply additional information, the full story can still be found. But you have to know what you are looking for when you begin. 

    If you reply for example, In reality, Theseus won property through bigamy and even kidnapped Helen when she was a child. You will get the following answer: Yes, in the context of Greek mythology, you are completely correct. While Theseus is often celebrated as a noble hero, his mythological history includes many deeply problematic and villainous acts, including the kidnapping of a young Helen.

    This answer includes a general outline of the story–Helen’s age, where they kept her, and the consequences of Theseus’s villainy. However, sources may hedge a little. For example, according to the source linked above, Theseus was motivated by his desire to marry a daughter of Zeus. That may be technically true, but it meant that he wanted access to what Helen would bring to a marriage: the throne and control of the related territory.

    Other sources fill in the blanks. Theseus used the same technique in Crete. When he married Phaedra, the sister of Ariadne and daughter of King Minos of Crete, it solidified Athenian ties to Cretan wealth and power. However, it ultimately ended in a family tragedy.

    Rome

    If you ask Google where Roman Patriarchy comes from, again the first answer is the politically correct one. Roman Patriarchy was the result of brutal practical realities. These ‘practical realities’ include early agrarian survival, warlike tribal foundations, and strict property law. The Sources listed are Reddit and Brewminate.com

    The explanation continues: While the Greeks used philosophy to keep women away, the Romans used codified law. Their law turned the male head of the household into a micro-emperor.

    Supposedly the economy of cattle and the danger that they might be stolen made this necessary. Men monopolized the warfare necessary to protect the herds. Therefore, the male line controlled the property. 

    There are many ways to say the same thing. For example, the early Roman agrarian state was surrounded by hostile neighbors and had to organize itself like a military fortress. The family was not an emotional unit. It was an economic corporation headed by the oldest male in the family. The sources listed are: Worldhistory.org; Wikipedia; bbc.co.uk; and medium.com.

    Nevertheless, we get the impression that the position of women in Rome was not as pitiful as Athenian women. 

    Objection: Why Didn’t the Indigenous People Become Patriarchal?

    There is one important objection to these justifications for Roman patriarchy. Indigenous peoples faced the same threats but they didn’t subjugate their women. This objection is quickly validated by Google’s AI.

    Your point about indigenous cultures (like many Native American tribes) developing matrilineal systems despite facing hostile neighbors is completely accurate. This proves that external threats do not inherently force a society to adopt an extreme patriarchy. 

    This thread provided the story of Romulus, which I related at the beginning of this discussion. It concludes with the following statement :

    While indigenous matrilineal societies relied on deep, stable kinship networks where women held the continuity of the community, Rome was an aggressive, synthetic military state built by rootless men.”

    The Stories of Ancient Greece and Rome are Actually Defense and Coverup

    In Greece, Plato and Aristotle provided an intellectual defense for the Hellenes’ brutal conquest during the Bronze age, centuries earlier. When they arrived, the Aegean was dominated by the Minoan Civilization on the island of Crete. This culture was centered around female power. (The reason for Greek hatred of women couldn’t be more clear.) 

    These were Mycenaeans, the first true Greeks. They arrived from the mainland around 1450 B.C.E.,  overthrew the Minoan centers, smashed the matriarchal structures, and replaced the Mother Goddess with their own sky-father warrior god, Zeus. (Quora.com and Internationalschoolhistory.com.)

    By the time Socrates and Plato came along, the physical violence was over, but the guilt and anxiety of that violence remained. Classical philosophy was the ultimate coping mechanism: it allowed Athenian men to look at the subjugated women around them and say,We didn’t violently steal your power; nature and logic dictate that you never should have had it in the first place’.” (LiteratureandHistory.com)

    The Weaponization of Name Calling and Outrage

    The Greeks in Herodotus’ times knew of four generations who were responsible for a period of social upheaval. One example is the renowned Heroes who slew many mythological beasts: Bellerophon killed the Chimera; Hercules or Herakles ended the lives of many monsters in his Twelve Labors; Theseus killed the Minotaur and founded Athens. We know now that these are pleasant ways of describing a more brutal reality. 

    The Chimera was one of the symbols of the Mother Goddess cult; we are really being told that Bellerophon ended the cult by killing its priestesses. He may have even used one Mother Goddess cult to wipe out another. The Pegasus, which he used to kill the Chimera, was one of Her favorite animals. However, he may also have experienced a revolt. In the end, he fell from Pegasus and died2, p. 129-130.

    The killing of the Minotaur by Theseus probably represents the Achaean invasion of Crete, and Herakles’ Second Labor was the killing of the Hydra of Lerna. The killing of the Hydra probably represents the elimination of a college of priestesses at Lerna. And when Herakles shot the Stymphalian birds with his arrows, his Sixth Labor, he was really suppressing a Goddess cult at Stymphaly. That’s how the myths are interpreted today.

    Herakles was Fighting a Religious War

    Herakles was fighting a religious war. His myth had vestiges of ancient Goddess worship, but it was distorted. Before he arrived, the Goddess cult had deified many Heroes, but in the end he was the only Hero who remained. (This is the same as Palemon, whose story is described below.)

    The myth states that Herakles worked for Hera. However, this isn’t exactly right. By this time, marriage was an Achaean weapon. Generations of Heroes before him had achieved political and religious status by marrying a sacred queen. In the case of this Herakles (his real name was Palemon) he was following orders to marry the Queen and become the Hero-King of that Euzkan region. He was accompanied on his mission by Theseus, Iolcus, Peleus and many others. When he took the Golden Girdle from Hippolyte the Queen of the Amazons on his ninth labor, he actually deflowered her. That led to a battle in which the Amazons were killed.

    The voyages of the Achaeans were not particularly focused. They included the exploration of trade routes and general mischief, so it took some time to understand what they were doing. Sometimes a king would simply leave the kingdom. It was a violation of religious tradition and a shocking lack of piety with no explanation, but it was considered a one-time thing. In addition, the period of kingship was gradually increased by the invaders, sometimes up to twenty years and only then would a king fight to avoid being deposed. The pattern wouldn’t become clear until later. After all, the indigenous population lived within the established system. It had been part of a sacred reality in that region for as long as anyone could remember. But finally the priestesses recognized the danger.

    Jason and Medea

    Jason married Medea, a Sacred Queen, and when the time came to escape he took her with him. When she discovered what his real intentions were, it was not possible for her to return. She was disgraced and she would have been punished. Instead she chose to advise King Aegeus of Athens of the threat posed by Theseus. She tried to poison Theseus, but he escaped to Crete where he seduced Ariadne. Then he returned to Athens, killed Aegeus, took the throne, and banished Medea.

    Palemon

    It is thought that Palemon married sacred queens at least three times, probably many more. As stated previously, the Achaeans were able to do this by taking a leave during their kingship. In this way they could unify or control a wide region. The social psychic instability continued for centuries, and most Greek tragedies are based in this period.

    Deianeira

    When Deianeira, the current wife of Palemon, realized what was happening, she took advice from the Centaurs, Pelasgian horsemen. They knew Palemon very well because he had had killed their king, Cheiron, and many others. This had been particularly outrageous because Centaur Cheiron had trained him in archery and the art of hallucinogens.

    Deianeria annointed one of Palemon’s shirts with a poison supplied by Centaur Nessus. He died while wearing this shirt. Palemon was deified after his death even though he was not the last Hero or even the last Herekles. For the indo-Europeans he was the only one.

    The old religion continued for some time, but the information war continued too. And eventually, Homer wrote his version of the drama in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

    What We Know About the First Patriarchal Systems

    Among Indo-Europeans women were very low on the social scale. For Latins and Greeks, they were just a little above other reproductive animals. They had no social rights at all. Rather than enjoying an independent lifestyle, they were transferred from their father’s authority to that of their husbands. If they survived their spouses, their male children assumed authority over them.

    Greek writers such as Theopompus and Hesiod, and their Roman compatriots like Cato, agreed that the only purpose of a woman was to provide legitimate children. The education of women was limited to weaving and cooking, and they never appeared in public.

    In ‘settled, lawful Rome’ until the rise of the Empire, women could not own property, or anything else for that matter. They were owned. They were so unimportant they had no names. Emilia and Claudia were family names indicating that they belonged to an Emilii or Claudii man.

    Women prepared the meals for their men and their guests but they did not eat with them. The same was true in Rome. Roman and Greek conservatives were disgusted by the conduct of Etruscan and Ionian women. Yes, disgusted. Not surprised, not curious, not disapproving. Disgusted!

    What was the Character of the Indigenous Society?

    A different sort of society existed in the same region during this period. The indigenous societies they took over had been in Europe thousands of years before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. They were the remnant of the Paleolithic population in that region.

    Ionian women for example joined their husbands at their businesses. They had their own businesses too, and could inherit and pass on property. Love in the couple was common. The women were competitive, and their husbands didn’t mind. 

    We know from my original patriarchy article that women in Egypt had similar rights before Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great. Alexander was a student of Aristotle; Aristotle was a student of Plato; Plato was in the vanguard of the regime-change campaign.

    Alexander the Great consciously strove to spread Greek thought, language and culture to all of the peoples he conquered. Thanks to him, the writings of his mentors, Plato and Aristotle, have been perpetuated in Western philosophy. And as Alfred North Whitehead famously said, Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato.

    Women’s Rights v Disgusted Indo-Europeans

    One of the accounts I am using focuses on the Basques. This is The Oldest Europeans by J. F. del Giorgio. I’ve discovered a few minor errors in this work, but I’ve found it useful for the most part. He argues the traits of these societies were shared by populations in other areas of the West, for example, Britons, Scandinavians, Irish, Welsh, Celts, Etruscans and Pelasgians–the Oldest Europeans. It is interesting that hatred for these cultures resurfaced before World War II. 

    The trait that had most bothered those early invaders was the independence and self-assertiveness of European women. Before World War II Asiatic anti-European propaganda claimed independent women were a modern symptom of European decadence. 

    del Giorgio argues that modernity had nothing to do with it.

    The independence and other remarkable traits of European women are not modern, It all comes from ancient, very ancient times.

    Actually, it is not now that they are more independent. They have not gained independence during the last millennia, but have almost completely lost it. European women were not merely independent in the past. They seem to have enjoyed a remarkable high status. They were practically in command (del Giorgio, p. 86)

    Patriarchy in Contemporary Society

    The impact of patriarchy on modern social structures is so total it is almost invisible. Many modern women assume they are liberated, or they did until the recent American backlash, but this perception was always delusional. The overriding structure of the world is patriarchal and it will remain that way until our institutions and economic agreements change drastically.

    Challenges to Patriarchal Structures

    An effective challenge to patriarchal structures does not exist in today’s world. The feminism allowed by our culture is part of the power structure. Take Hilary Clinton for example. She and Bill together have been good soldiers for the Anglo-Saxon-leaning power-base for their entire careers. And I would venture to say that Hilary has always been in awe of Bill’s political ability, regardless of her independent feminist stance. She is talented in her own way and hard-working, but her only claim to fame in the 2016 election was being female. She didn’t win, but she fulfilled her assignment–to do whatever was necessary to defeat Bernie.

    The Same-Sex Marriage Movement as Women’s Rights Strategy

    The same-sex marriage movement has its own dedicated lobbyists who are working toward some invisible goal. Feminist theory may be the source of this movement, but as a strategy for women’s rights, it’s wrong-headed. 

    Greece and Rome fostered same-sex relationships, but this did not help Greek or Roman women. Same-sex relations were not a threat to the Achaeans. Women as women were the threat, and the Achaeans destroyed the cultures that honored them. 

    The Romans loved Greek art, architecture, and literature, and they assimilated some of it into their arts and mythology. They were also heavily patriarchal but their patriarchy had a different character than Greek patriarchy. The Romans rejected certain Greek institutions. They especially despised the classical Greek social structures which they believed made Athenian men weak, effeminate, and psychologically soft. For that reason, they criticized gymnariums and nakedness. These institutions were a recipe for laziness and corruption in their view. The Romans exercised for military training, but they kept their clothes on. (thehistorianshut.com; onlinelibrary.wiley.com)

    Rome also rejected Greek pederasty. They thought it violated a citizen’s dignity. They did form same-sex relationships, but they protected Roman youth. A Roman citizen could only have same-sex relations with slaves or non-citizens, and he must always take the dominant penetrative role. They viewed the Greek system of courted free citizens as a complete breakdown of patriarchal authority.(rlesser.sites.gettysburg.edu; thoughts.com)

     

     

     

    1. John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really said About Women. HarperCollins Publishers, NY, 1988. []
    2. J.F. del Georgio, The Oldest Europeans. A.J. Place, 2005. []
  • Misogyny is Part of a Complex Ideology

    Reading Time: 7 minutes

    Often misogyny is part of a complex ideology. But it’s not clear which came first–the misogyny or the supporting ideology. For committed misogynists, hatred is a preference. Francis Parker Yockey and Baron Julius Evola were both misogynists. Kevin Coogan attributes this in large part to occult influences. The most prominent source of far right occult beliefs in the postwar period was Theosophy.

    Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

    Among Yockey’s possessions when the FBI arrested him was a citation for the June 1937 issue of The Theosophical Forum, an American journal of the Theosophy Society. The Russian-born mystic, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky founded the Theosophical society in New York City in 1875. In 1888, she published her book, The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky’s doctrine basically turned the evolutionary worldview on its head. However, she had no intention of replacing evolution with biblical creationism. Her work resulted in countless forms and expressions of mischief.

    Root Races

    According to Blavatsky, the world has seen the rise and fall of seven “Root Races”. This rise and fall has taken place many times over. Now (in Blavatsky’s time) the Aryan, or fifth Root Race, dominates the world. However, the Aryans are at the end of a karmic cycle.

    Blavatsky taught that the Kali-Yuga was a time of great destruction. But its end was coming. This meant the beginning of the new Sixth Root Race. And the Sixth Root Race would begin the ascendancy of man toward the highest, Seventh Root Race of god-men.

    Curiously, Blavatsky’s Root Races were not biological entities. They were psychic entities. But in spite of this, her arguments were very influential for the racist right in both Germany and Austria. They ‘proved’ the Aryans were distant spiritual descendants of the highest root race, descended from the degenerate Atlantean tribes who themselves descended from the original god-men.

    Traditionalism vs Evolutionism

    The subterranean world of the high occult enveloped Yockey. Thanks to his occult interests, he saw himself as part of an underground elite, a secret new race of god-men. He wrote extensively about polarity and he developed sado-masochistic inclinations. To understand him, it is necessary to examine the writings of Julius Evola, the most important and most influential fascist high-occultist in postwar Europe.

    In his book, Revolt Against the Modern World. Evola argued that every epoch has its own myth. Democratic evolutionism is the Kali-Yuga’s myth. The myth of the new age, however, will be the Traditional worldview.

    Tradition teaches that mankind did not come from lower forms. It has higher origins. The lower represents a degeneration from the higher. Like Blavatsky, Evola claimed that today’s Aryans are the spiritual descendants of the highest root race. This highest root race was a ‘divine’ race. But it mixed its seed with the inferior human race, and so it is no longer with us.1

    Tradition, in more recent eras, developed a variety of myths referring to races as bearers of civilization and to the struggles between divine races and animal, cyclopic, or demonic races. They are the Aesir against the Elementarwesen; the Olympians and the heroes against giants and monsters of the darkness, the water, and the earth. They are the Aryan deva fighting against the asura, the enemies of the divine heroes; they are the Incas, the dominators who impose their solar laws on the aborigines who worshipped ‘Mother Earth’.

    Julius Evola, as quoted by Kevin Coogan p. 304

    As mentioned in a previous article, Evola was an early critic of Yockey’s Imperium. However, he merely thought Yockey was unrealistic about the timeframe of the fascist takeover. Evola and Yockey agreed on their basic ideology.

    René Guénon

    René Guénon was also an important figure in the European occult underground. Evola and Guénon had a disagreement about man’s relationship to the gods, however Guénon’s Traditionalism remained important within the European far right. And although Guénon eventually converted to Islam, he remained close to ‘traditionalist’ elements of the Catholic Church.

    Guénon taught that the modern age’s interest in democracy, mass culture, and materialism are all manifestations of the Kali-Yuga. The Kali-Yuga has infected thinking to the point where Western philosophy is purely human in character. Now philosophy is merely part of the rational order, which is inferior.

    The ideal order is a sort of genuine supra-rational and non-human traditional wisdom. Humans can’t achieve this kind of wisdom because ‘Truth’ is not a product of the human mind. It exists independently of ourselves. All we can do is apprehend it (Coogan, p. 294).

    Evola embraced this argument completely. He shared Guénon’s hatred of ‘mere human logos’. He believed that all the Renaissance had accomplished was to usher in the exaltation of the individual. Greece’s true zenith was not in the time of Socrates. It was during the mythical Heroic Age of Heracles.

    Traditionalism and the Un-human Ideal

    A human-like ‘personal God’ did not rule Evola’s universe. It was ruled by a numen. He defined a numen as an immutable naked force, an essence free of passion and change, one which creates distance with regard to everything which is merely human, a solar realm of Olympic peace and light, of divine regality. Borrowing from Guénon, he claimed this vision of pure being, the Hindu Satya-Yuga, corresponded in the West to Hesiod’s Golden Age.

    Like Spengler, he believed fascism was valuable only because it would bring on the dissolution of the old world in the Kali-Yuga. The old world’s destruction was necessary in order for the new age to arise. For Evola, fascism was merely a political form of Dada.

    Coogan on The Hermetic Tradition

    To help his readers understand Evola’s argument about God, Coogan examines Evola’s 1931 book The Hermetic Tradition. He reports that when Avaloka, a journal devoted to Hermetic thought, published a review from a section of Evola’s book, The Tree, the Serpent, and the Titan, the journal’s editor, Arthur Versluis, warned his readers that there is something Promethean, if not Luciferian, in Evola’s perspective. Coogan agrees (Coogan p. 296).

    The World Tree

    According to Evola’s ideology, the tree is an axis mundi joining two worlds: the solar world of immortality and timeless knowledge (Being) and the telluric world of Mother Earth (Becoming). This view associates Becoming with women, earth, and chaos symbols like dragons.

    In his book, Evola examines the dual symbolism of the Tree, namely its identification with notions of immortality and supernatural knowledge as well as its association with fatal and destructive forces like dragons, serpents, and demons. But of course Evola is talking about the World Tree. Coogan identifies three famous trees representing universal force. They are the Tree of the World, and the two biblical trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Each of them symbolizes the universal force linked to supernatural knowledge, immortality, and the power of domination. This universal force has a feminine nature.

    Misogyny is based on a complex ideology
    The Idea of a Danger. Credit: George Cotayo
    A Danger or a Promise?

    These trees also contain the idea of a danger. On the one hand, the tree symbolizes a temptation which brings ruin and damnation upon the one who succumbs to it. But it is also the object of conquest which transforms he who dares to undertake it into a God. It might even transfer the attributes of divinity and immortality from one race of beings to another.

    Adam tried to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and become godlike. He failed. But according to some legends, others have succeeded. These include the Hindu god Indra, Odin, Mithras, and Heracles. The legends tell us

    …of an undertaking which involved risk and a fundamental uncertainty. In Hesiod’s Theogony, and typically in the legend of the king of the Woods, Gods or exceptional men are seen as taking possession of power which can pass, along with the attributes of divinity, to whoever knows how to seize it…But among those who make the attempt, some force a way and triumph, and others fall, paying for their daring, experiencing the fatal effects of that same [primordial female] power.

    Julius Evola, as quoted by Coogan, p. 297

    Coogan objects to Evola’s presentation of this drama. He thinks the real question is whether man should even attempt to rival the gods. In mythology there are only two answers to this question, and they are in opposition to each other. They are the ‘magico-heroic’ answer and the religious answer.

    According to the magico-heroic view, he who attempts to become one with the gods but fails, is simply a being whose fortitude and good fortune were not equal to his daring. In the religious interpretation, however, such misfortune is changed to guilt, the heroic attempt [is changed] to a sacrilegious and cursed act not because of its failure, but in itself.

    Coogan, p. 297

    Adam

    Misogyny is Part of a Complex Ideology
    What happened to Adam is the only thing that could have happened to him. Credit: Grafissimo

    Coogan argues that what happens to Adam is the only thing that could have happened to him. Adam becomes one who has sinned. He has no alternative, therefore, but to seek expiation, and above all to renounce the wish which led him to that undertaking. The idea that the conquered can still think of reconquest, or intend to hold firm to the dignity which his act has earned him, appears from the religious perspective as ‘the most reprehensible Luciferism’ (Coogan p. 298). Yet, the heroic viewpoint persists.

    Hermes

    The Hermetic tradition represents the heroic viewpoint. Hermes is not only the messenger of the Gods; he is also one who succeeds. He takes from Zeus his scepter, from Venus her belt, and from Vulcan, the tools of his allegorical craft. In Egyptian tradition, Hermes became Hermes Trismegistus. He is the figure of one of the Kings and masters of the primordial age who gave man the principles of a higher civilization.

    The Fallen Angels

    Fallen Angels
    From Their Union Sprang the Nephilim or Watchers. Credit: francescoch

    We also have the account of fallen angels in the Book of Enoch. Coogan argues that it wasn’t merely their desire for the women that caused their downfall. There is power in woman’s relationship with the Tree, and power is what the angels were really after. When the angels became united to power, they fell and came to earth. They alighted on a high place of the earth (Mount Hermon), and from their union with the women sprang the Nephilim or Watchers. The Watchers teach the Royal Hermetic Art by which man can control the Gods.

    Evola updated and reissued The Hermetic Tradition in 1948. This was three years after the defeat of the ‘Heroes’ in World War II. For Evola, losing the war was not a metaphysical punishment. It was a simple defeat. He never stopped pursuing the quest for power/knowledge, for immortality, for domination over the Tree/Female. The Hermetic Tradition is a vision of a new race of men/gods.

    What Guénon and Evola Had in Common

    According to Coogan, Guénon was different than Evola. He thought Catholicism was the only tradition that could provide the ruling mythos for Europe (p. 300). But I think Coogan gives Guénon too much credit. In Guenon’s scheme, the elite will rule the world using primordial teachings found in several distinct traditions. But that is a discussion for another time.

    1. Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International, Autonomedia, Brooklyn, New York, 1999, pp. 291-292 ↩︎