by Frank Gelli
‘You can’t blame the Pope for being worried. As a reformed libertine, maybe his conscience troubled him. He might have felt his peccadilloes were catching up with him. Anyway, after he summoned Christendom to a crusade he discovered one thing: the holy war was out of date. The crowned sheep of Europe shunned the shepherd’s call. He might as well have urged rulers to refight the war of Troy. Meanwhile the Turks kept advancing into Greece. They looked unstoppable.’
‘It happens that one of Pius’ close advisers was Cardinal Nicholas Von Cusa. Not just a cleric but a philosopher. The writer of Cribratio Alcorani. A polemical study of the Qur’an. Von Cusa believed, against the orthodox church opinion, that the Bible and the Qur’an said the same things. They were in essential harmony. To many that must have looked as crazy. But the Cardinal was not bothered. After all, he had written treatises with baffling titles, such as “Learned Ignorance” and “The Wise Idiot”. He was not afraid of paradoxes and seeming contradictions. He held that the road to truth lies beyond reason, beyond arguments and beyond that old Aristotelian bogey, the principle of contradiction. Because he knew that God is himself the best example of the “coincidence of the opposites”. He is the Being in which all contradictions meet and are resolved.’
‘I am sure it was at the instigation of Von Cusa that Pius II addressed a letter to Sultan Mehmet. It may indeed look like an example of diplomatic madness, if not a straight contradiction. “O Sultan, embrace Christianity. Be baptised!” the Pope cajoled. “Great king, by force you have seized the throne of Byzantium. But remember him who founded the great city: Emperor Constantine was a pagan who accepted Christ. Not only did he save his soul - he also became the universal ruler. He united East and West under him. Providence commands me to invite you to salvation. Become a Christian! Accept the Cross, the sign from Heaven under which Constantine triumphed. Then not only Europe but the whole vast world will be lawfully yours.”
‘Of course, there was not the slightest chance Mehmet would have accepted the Pope’s dubious invitation. He was a sincere Muslim, wasn’t he? As such, the Prophet has already promised him paradise – he did not need the Pope for that! Some say Von Cusa held that the wise men of Islam, the ulama’, did not really believe the Qur’an and that therefore Mehmet was no true Muslim. That is nonsense. The cardinal was too sharp to believe anything so silly. At best, he allowed the Pope to believe it. Mehmet felt fairly confident that he was going to take the second Rome, too. Again, the Pope’s offer struck him as redundant. Lastly, although there is no official record of this, I can tell you that Mehmet wrote back to the Pope, mocking him. “You become a Muslim, Signor Pope of Rome. So when I conquer your city I will give you a nice, comfortable job as Imam of St Peter – if you show you are a pious, sincere believer...’
‘Von Cusa was a visionary. An intellectual and spiritual giant. His key insight was the idea of unity. He knew the world hankered after unity. He beheld the world he inhabited as lacerated by divisions, quarrels and conflicts of all types. Not the expression of healthy struggles but the result of squalid ambitions, mercantile rivalries, partisan envies and jealousies. Today also Europe craves unity. The problem is that the one-eyed politicians see only the economic factor. Mercantilism again. Their vision of reality is extremely narrow. It revolves around buying and selling. And lending at interest, like Shylock. Von Cusa’s unity hinged on transcendence. He gave it the name “God” – a convenient shorthand in his days. The underlying unity of all religions, the Fritjof Schuon’s view – Von Cusa had anticipated that. The contradictions are so only to those who have eyes but cannot see...’
He trailed off, as if exhausted. ‘But Von Cusa failed, didn’t he? No unity was achieved’ I observed.
‘Never mind. Plato gives a hint towards the end of his Republic. People had said that his ideal society was utopian, unrealisable but he did not let their criticisms bother him unduly. His ideal state, he countered, was “a pattern laid up in heaven. Anyone who wishes it can see it and found it in his own heart.” The vision is what matters. It could be a suitable epitaph for my own life...As I look back on it, I have to conclude that, in the pragmatic sense, I have had no success whatever. But, like Plato, I have bequeathed a vision on kindred souls who will study me in future. That suffices me.’
ISRAEL
The 1967 lightening war between Israel and the Arabs had resulted in a crushing defeat for the Arabs and in a great victory for the Jews. It was all the more shocking because it was unexpected. Everybody at first had thought the war would go on for months. The Israelis had asked for foreign volunteers to come over to help in running basic services, while all the men and women were at front, fighting. At the time I militated in the Italian Socialist Party and I thought of myself as pro-Israel. So, the day after the war had broken out I went with my friend, Franco Tarallo, to the Israeli Embassy in Rome. We offered ourselves as volunteers to help with the war effort. But the Jews won so quickly that they never had any need of us. As a result, I never saw the Holy Land.
Palestinian friends, do not gnash your teeth! Back then I had little understanding of the background and the real nature of the conflict, the Zionist machinations, and the injustices inflicted on the Arabs. There was much youthful unrest, much confusion behind my act. I was mixed-up. Drifting, unhappy in love and all the rest. Some young men ran away to join the French Foreign Legion, I yearned for adventure in the Middle East – that was my state of mind at the time. Anyway, after some hesitation, I confided in the Baron. I told him of what I had done. I expected him to disapprove but Evola was often unpredictable. Again and again, the old Dadaist spirit – or the Zen master, perhaps the same thing - would resurface. He also knew all about the wonderful foolishness of youth. He had had enough young disciples to realise how impetuous, how foolhardy the young could be. But the point is that it turned out he admired the Israelis. That should give the lie to the deep-seated cliché that he was a vulgar anti-Semite:
‘Just as well you were not called. I do not think you would have enjoyed slaving away in a factory or a kibbutz. Fighting in the Army, yes. It is always good to fight but the Israelis would not have allowed it. The Jews in Israel have wonderfully mutated from their ancestors in the European ghettos, the Russian Shtetel. A new race has been created in old Palestine. They call them the Sabras. A tough bunch. Like the ancient Spartans. It is a sort of military and political aristocracy. That is amazing. The ragged, the wailing beggars, the querulous moneylenders have become a martial people. Biologically, there is no difference, the Sabras are their fathers’ children, but spiritually! You see, you see! The supreme importance of the non-material, the intangible, the soul, the spirit. The biological is almost nothing, I tell you, nothing. Character is all...It is an idea as power, or the power of an idea, if you like. We see this all the time. Even the Bolshevik revolutionary armies initially were the offscourings, the riff-raff of the world and yet they fought like heroes. They beat off the invading forces after WWI...Almost took Warsaw but the Poles stopped them and beat them back...You know what the Duke of Wellington called his own soldiers: “The scum of the earth”. And yet with the same ruffians he defeated Napoleon. The Jews in Israel have done the same. Never mind what motley crew their ancestors were. They are now a real people...The Arabs are a great people, too, of course. Now they are in the dumps. Arab socialism does not suit them. It has sapped their energies. You can’t mix atheism, Marxism and the Qur’an. The Arabs already have their own prophet in Muhammad. They’ll never exchange Muhammad for Marx...Besides, Nasser has shown himself to be a dud. He deserved defeat. Arab socialism will die with him. There will soon be a resurgence of Islam. That is certain. Islam’s worldwide advance has not stopped yet... Islam is the power-idea of the Arabs. They just need another Saladin...I don’t think the Crusaders will ever get another Richard the Lionheart, too bad...When the time comes – I am sure it will be soon - they can restore the Khilafa. (He used the Arab word for the Caliphate.) When the Islamic awakening comes, the Arabs will b
ounce back but not before.’
‘Behind Nasser’s socialism I sniff a distinct strand of Arab atheism. Does it surprise you? People think of the Arabs as a God-intoxicated people but they have had their share of godless thinkers. The most famous is Abu Bakr al-Razi. The free-thinker of Islam, they call him. A violent anti-religious writer from the Middle Ages. Revealed religion for him was old wives’ tales. Prophecy was unnecessary, human reason sufficed. As a medical doctor, he put empirical science above anything else. They say he was responsible for that entertaining canard, “The Three Imposters”. A pamphlet circulated anonymously at the time. Just as well, as the frauds in question were supposed to be Moses, Jesus and Muhammad! The founders of the three monotheistic faiths. Razi was a sworn enemy of Transcendence, a forerunner of the so-called Enlightenment. Amazing that he never came to grief at the hands of the faithful. True Arab tolerance. Anyway, his example shows how Nasser was Razi’s political ‘reincarnation’, if I can so misuse the term.’
I regard his comments to me on Israel as most significant. Biased critics, petty people and mean souls with an axe to grind, have pilloried Evola because of his alleged anti-Semitism. Yet, balanced scholars, such as the historian Renzo De Felice, have recognised that the label is unfair. It is clear that Evola’s views had nothing to do with crude biological determinism, such as Hitler’s. It is unfortunate that the word “race” has come to be associated with that. Not that I hope hostile critics will take notice. Those with a party agenda will go on discrediting Evola forever. However, I also believe his malamatiya vocation played a role here. Superficially, it may appear like a contradiction: was he or was he not an anti-Semite? If he was not, then there is no question of courting shame, but then he would not be a secret Sufi, as I claim he was. On the other hand, if he was anti-Semitic, then how to explain his pro-Jewish comments on Israel?
I believe that the contradiction is only apparent. What he said to me about the Jews in Israel being a new type was not for public consumption. As far as I know, he never stated as much in print. They are views that he held ex animo, sincerely, but, just the same, he did not care to have them made public. I surmise that he was prevented from doing that by the awareness that his detractors would never have taken any notice, anyway. He would be forever the ‘bad master’. Why should he have minded? With so many shallow, useless ‘good teachers’ around, a “bad one” may actually be preferable. And so be it.
Lovers of Palestine should not misjudge Evola’s pro-Israel remarks. His comments were, I think, along lines of the Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun, arguably the founder of the science of sociology. Civilisations rise and fall, depending on the strength of what Ibn Khaldun calls their asabiya. A sort of team spirit or a sense of deep solidarity. Israel’s stunning victory during the six-day war suggested to him that the state of Israel possessed asabiya in the highest degree. It was a dark time for the Arabs. However, Evola made it clear that he believed that the vital force that had impelled the Arabs long ago out of their deserts to fight and conquer half the world was not extinguished yet. Time has proved him right.
THE NIGHT JOURNEY
‘The Qur’an alludes to a mysterious night journey the Prophet Muhammad once undertook. In the twinkling of an eye, he went from one holy city, Mecca, to another, Jerusalem. That night journey, despite its wonder, was still merely terrestrial. The second is different, as it took the Messenger of God up to the celestial realms. The Qur’anic verse compresses all this in a few words. Muslims still debate how that could be. Did the Prophet experience his journeys in a dream or a vision? Or was there more to it? It seems that Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, vouchsafed that her husband had not moved from her side during that night. At least according to one biographer. A Spaniard, Asin Palacio, has written extensively about it...He holds that Dante based the structure of Divine Comedy on popular Arab versions of Muhammad’s night journey. It has annoyed Italian scholars of Dante. I am glad. They need to be shaken up, those grey-beards...Asin also points out the common features between the ideas of Ibn Arabi and Dante...’ He said many things about this subject – it seemed to be very important to him – but they are now beyond recall. (This narration failed to grip me back then. Having had to study Dante at school, I went through a strong rejection stage.) However, one thing I do recall distinctly - he did stress that the Qur’anic passage in question was important not only mystically but politically. Because it implicitly mentions Jerusalem. The city now disputed between Muslims and Jews. If the Qur’an, a text held to be transmitted by God, alludes to it, that confirms Jerusalem’s high status for Muslims.
FRANCO’S MUSLIMS
‘It was Franco who showed how Muslims really feel about Communism. I do not care for Franco – a clericalist and a reactionary...But his own best, crack troops were loyal Moroccan soldiers. He brought them with him when he began his uprising against the red republic in 1936. The Moroccans were utterly devoted to Franco. Despite the fact that he was the archetypal Africanista, one of the Spanish generals who won their spurs fighting the Moors in North Africa. Muslims always respect a warrior like Franco, never mind his religion. The Generalissimo could doubt the loyalty of his own fellow nationalists, a squabbling bunch, but his Moroccans he would completely trust. He even paid for them to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca. The Reds tried to convince the Moroccans that they had been deceived. They used all the stock propaganda arguments, “Be on the side of the oppressed, working people like you, don’t give your life for the Fascists...” the usual stuff. But the Moroccans were totally impervious to that. Quite apart from their fidelity to Franco, their hatred of Marxism as a godless creed incompatible with Islam ensured they could never desert. So they joined the crusade...against Marx!’ Evola seemed happy to have come up with that expression. ‘Yes, an anti-Marxist crusade. Maybe that could be replicated in future. If there is a force that will really be capable of breaking Communism, both spiritually and materially, that is Islam. Capitalist America could do by sheer force of arms, perhaps, by bombing Russia back to the stone age, but capitalism lacks a coherent moral ideology. Islam has that. And there are very many Muslims in the Soviet Union. Now they may seem dormant but one day they will rise up, mark my words.’
‘One positive thing about Franco was his conviction that Freemasonry was as dangerous as Communism. Or even more insidious, as it operates in the shadows. He even wrote some anonymous articles in a Spanish paper after the war. I have read them. Not that he could do anything about it but at least he was aware of the danger.
‘Joseph De Maistre himself had been a Freemason. He wrote that at the time he felt they were gatherings of fine individuals. But later he came to see through the deception.’
KEMAL, THE BANE OF THE TURKS
He excoriated Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic. ‘Ataturk was a catastrophe for the Turks. What the Christians could never achieve, a Turk did. The enemy inside. He dethroned Allah. By changing the Arabic alphabet, he made it impossible for people to read their own language. Cultural genocide, you might call it. His abolition of the Caliphate was symptomatic of a deep-seated malaise. By the time of WWI the institution was only a husk but, as a symbol, it still mattered. The Caliph was a link between Heaven and earth – one of his titles was “Shadow of God”. Ataturk brutally extinguished even the symbol. The secular West was his model. He destroyed the Sufi fraternities, hanged the Sufi masters...a real swine. Ataturk means “the father of the Turks”. A misnomer. It should rather be “the bane of the Turks”.
‘Funny how Ataturk owed his success to Turkey’s historical enemies, the Greeks. The British Prime Minister, a Welshman called Lloyd George, had made a deal with the Greek leader, Venizelos. The idea was to invade and dismember Turkey. The Greeks wanted to restore Byzantium. So King Constantine of Greece landed with an army in Smyrna. I imagine he fancied himself to be an avenger. Remember, the last Emperor of Byzantium had been Constantine XIII. He died fighting, as it becomes an Emperor, defending Constantinople from the Turks
. The Greeks meant to take their revenge. The adventure did not go quite according to plan. Ataturk rallied his people, hit back, smashed the Greek armies and threw them back into the sea. The victory made him into the saviour of his country. His power and subsequent cult stemmed from that. Muslims from across the world of Islam hailed his triumphs as coming from Allah. How ironic that shortly after Ataturk would overthrow Allah’s very rule in Turkey! He made himself more important, more revered than Muhammad, even more than God himself. I remember reading this anecdote somewhere - a soldier, when asked about God, replied: ‘I know God. His name is Ataturk and he lives in Ankara.’ Any Muslim would consider that blasphemous. Yet, the Ataturk cult was like that.’
‘Ataturk, however, is bound to lose out in the end. You cannot totally sever the connection between a people worth his name and its ancestral roots. The day will come when Ataturk too will be knocked off his throne...Freudian theory springs to mind. You see, according to Freud there is a psychic mechanism called “the return of the repressed”. In the individual that means that every boy dreams of sleeping with his mother and killing his father. Despite repressing these desires, something about his father, a character trait or distinctive behaviour, will subsequently manifest itself in the adult son. That, crudely put, is the return of the repressed. But in his book, Moses and Monotheism, Freud used this concept to explain the true origins of myth of the deliverer, Moses, amongst the ancient Hebrews. The man Moses they had actually murdered in the wilderness and then gone back to worship idols – an interesting view! Memories of the shameful deed – after all, Moses was the Egyptian who both had taught them monotheism and led them out of slavery – lingered in the people’s collective subconscious. To psychologically compensate for the guilt, the Jews later embraced the stricter, fanatical monotheism.’