Amanda Bradley on the Absolute Woman

There has been much discussion here lately about the elusive traditional woman.

We have had several discussions on this topic in the past and they always generate a good deal of controversy.

Sadly, the dulcet tones of the Tradition-oriented woman are usually absent from these conversations. While those women are busy fulfilling the Aphrodistic and Demeterian functions of their nature (thereby proving the old adage that good women rarely make history), their feminist counterparts are left behind to define “the female position” vis-a-vis White Nationalism through a series of embittered, Amazonian diatribes.

Thus, I was heartened to see that Amanda Bradley recently penned an informative, well-balanced essay in defense of the Traditional Woman over at Counter-Currents. It is very refreshing to see a woman articulate this point of view, so I am reproducing it here in full for the benefit of those who may have missed its original publication at Counter-Currents.

Absolute Woman:
A Clarification of Evola’s Thoughts on Women

Amanda Bradley

One of the central concepts of Julius Evola’s philosophy of gender is the distinction between absolute man and absolute woman. But he seldom gives explicit definitions of these terms. Absolute man and woman can be likened to Platonic Forms, thus defining them can be as difficult as defining Justice, Truth, or Love.

The term “absolute woman” inspires more controversy than “absolute man.” Since the male principle is associated with light, goodness, and activity, whereas the female principle is associated with darkness, evil, and passivity, feminists can easily claim that Evola’s views are inherently misogynist. Another point of controversy is Otto Weininger’s influence on Evola. Evola himself admits that Weininger must be read critically due to “his unconscious misogynous complex” (Julius Evola, Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex [Rochester, Vermont.: Inner Traditions, 1991], 157–58).

It is important to address Evola’s writings on women so that his views are correctly understood. Since he was opposed to the emerging feminism of his day, it would be easy for those unfamiliar with his ideas to infer that Evola also was anti-woman. By explaining his views and not glossing over any points that do in fact sound misogynistic (as is the case with some Evola devotees) the New Right can set the terms of discourse and accurately elucidate his position.

Evola on the Composition of Human Beings

The simplest definition of “absolute woman” is the female principle, the feminine force of the universe. Individual men and woman have varying degrees of the absolute man and woman, although the feminine principle usually is the underlying force in women.

In the modern world (the Kali Yuga) these forces appear in more degenerate forms and also do not always manifest properly. In fact, Evola said that “cases of full sexual development are seldom found. Almost every man bears some traces of femininity and every woman residues of masculinity . . . the traits that we deemed typical for the female psyche can be found in man as well as women, particularly in regressive phases of a civilization” (Eros, 169). In addition, these “manifest differently depending on the race and type of civilization” (Eros, 168).

To understand the influence of the “absolute woman,” it is first necessary to understand Evola’s conception of the human being. He held that humans are comprised of three parts:

the outer individual (the personality, or ego).
the level of profound being, the site of the principium individuationis. This is the true “face” of a person as opposed to the mask of the ego.
the level of elementary forces that are “superior and prior to the individuation but acting as the ultimate seat of the individual.” (Eros, 36)
It is at the third level, that of elementary forces, where sexual attraction is aroused (Eros, 36). Thus it is here that the elementary forces that comprise the absolute man or woman are located. This matches Evola’s description of some modern women, who are able to develop “masculine” skills such as logic or intellectualism. He says they have done so “by way of a layer placed on top of [their] deepest nature” (Eros, 151–52). However, they have not succeeded in altering their fundamental nature, only their superficial personalities.

A Metaphysical Starting-Point for Male and Female

According to Traditional doctrines, the sexes were metaphysical forces before they manifested in the world. Absolute man and woman exist from the beginning of time, when the Universal One splits into a Dyad, which then causes the rest of creation. In most forms of Hinduism, Shiva, the male principle, is identified with pure Being. Shakti, the female principle, is identified with Becoming and Change. In a similar vein, Aristotle associated the male principle with form and the female with matter. According to Evola, form means “the power that determines and arouses the principle of motion, development, becoming” while matter means “the substance or power that, being devoid of form in itself, can take up any form, and which in itself is nothing but can become everything when it has been awakened and fecundated” (Eros, 118). In the Far Eastern tradition, yang (the male principle) is associates with heaven, while yin (the female principle) is associated with the earth (Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, trans. Guido Stucco [Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions: 1995], 157.).Thus, form and matter combined to create the manifested universe. And from the coitus of Shiva and Shakti “springs the world” (Eros, 122). (This is in contrast to Oswald Spengler, who believed that becoming was the essential element, rather than steadfast being.)

The male principle is associated with truth, light, the Sun, virility, activeness, and stability. Sometimes it is associated with the Universal One that existed before the Dyad. The female quality is associated with deception, changeability, the moon, the earth, darkness, wetness, passivity, and dependence on another. In Evola’s words:

What the Greeks called “heterity,” that is, being connected to another or being centered on someone other than oneself, is a characteristic proper to the cosmic female, whereas to have one’s own principle in oneself is proper to the pure male. . . . female life is almost always devoid of an individual value but is linked to someone else in her need, born of vanity, to be acknowledged, noticed, flattered, admired, and desired (this extroverted tendency is connected to that “looking outside” which on a metaphysical level has been attributed to Shakti). (Eros, 157)

These forces then manifest in actual men and women. But Evola is clear to maintain that absolute man and woman are not simply aspects of character. Instead, they are “objective elements working in individuals almost as impersonally as the chemical properties inherent in a particular substance” (Eros, 152). As Evola says:

before and besides existing in the body, sex exists in the soul and, to a certain extent, in the spirit itself. We are man or woman inwardly before being so externally; the primordial male or female quality penetrates and saturates the whole of our being visibly and invisibly . . . just as a color permeates a liquid. (Eros, 32)

As such, the absolute woman is not simply an idealized concept of woman. She is defined from the divine down to the human, and is not a human conception of something divine.

Evola’s Description of Absolute Woman

The absolute woman is the rod by which all women are to be measured. Evola writes, “the only thing we can do is establish the superiority or inferiority of a given woman on the basis of her being more of less close to the female type, to the pure and absolute woman, and the same thing applies to man as well” (Eros, 34). In addition, superiority is defined by how closely one realizes the absolute woman or man. “A woman who is perfectly woman is superior to a man who is imperfectly man, just as a farmer who is faithful to his land and performs his work perfectly is superior to a king who cannot do his own work,” says Evola (Eros, 34).

Many more characteristics are associated with the female principle than those described below; however, these are the primary ones highlighted by Evola in his writings on the subject.

The Waters and Changeability

The fundamental feminine characteristic is changeability. Thus, the female is associated with water, which is fluid, and adapts to whatever form it is put into, just as matter/Shakti is shaped by form/Shiva. Evola writes that woman “reflects the cosmic female according to its aspect as material receiving a form that is external to her and that she does not produce from within” (Eros, 153). This fits in with Carl Jung’s description of woman’s animus, which is not self-created, but instead is a subconscious collection of the thoughts of men.

This changeability is related to woman’s tendency to live for someone outside of herself, due to the fluidity and changeability of her nature. For Evola, this means following the path of a mother or lover, fixing herself to a virile force in order to obtain transcendence. In contrast, “modern woman in wanting to be for herself has destroyed herself” (Revolt, 165.). By believing that she is merely her personality, she loses her transcendent aspect.

This changeability is seen in the association of the female with water. According to Evola, water represents “undifferentiated life prior to and not yet fixed in form,” that “which runs or flows and is therefore unstable and changeable,” and “the principle of all fertility and growth according to the analogy of water’s fertilizing action on earth and soil” (Eros, 119).

Evola also describes the correct relationship between the principle of water and that of fire, associated with the male: “when the feminine principle, whose force is centrifugal, does no turn to fleeting objects but rather to a ‘virile’ stability in which she finds a limit to her ‘restlessness’” (Revolt, 158).

Evola assents that certain modern women may appear very unchangeable, but stresses that this is at an outer level of her being:

a possible rigidity may follow the reception of ideas due precisely to the passive way she has adopted them, which may appear under the guise of conformity and conservatism. In this way, we can explain the apparent contrast inherent in the fact that female nature is changeable, yet women mainly show conservative tendencies sociologically and a dislike for the new. This can be linked to their role in mythology as female figures of a Demeter or chthonic type who guard and avenge customs and the law—the law of blood and of the earth, but not the uranic law. (Eros, 153)

Thus, a woman may be quite unchanging in her beliefs about society, etiquette, and morality, but will lack an attachment to a transcendent truth. Many of women’s ideas regarding social truths such as honor and virtue are “not true ethics but mere habits,” Evola says (Eros, 155).

This changeability of women explains the notion that women are at the same time more compassionate and more cruel than men; as woman is associated with the earth, she expresses both the tenderness of the mother and the cruelty of nature. The best example of this duality is the Greek goddess Artemis, who was both the protector of wild animals and the huntress.

Woman’s Lack of Being or Soul

Perhaps the most controversial characteristic of Evola’s absolute woman, which he gets from Weininger, is a common conception throughout history: that woman has no soul, or being. Weininger states that woman has no ego, referring to the Transcendental Ego of Immanuel Kant, which Evola describes as “above the whole world of phenomena (in metaphysical terms one would say ‘above all manifestation,’ like the Hindu atman)” (Eros, 151). In some schools of Hinduism, the atman (or “higher self”) is identical with the Brahman, the infinite soul of the Universe. In other Hindu conceptions, the atman is the life-principle. As manifested existence would be impossible without the atman, this description of woman as lacking a Transcendental Ego should not be taken to mean that women are incapable of developing and solidifying this aspect, though they may be at a disadvantage to men. Also, in the Kali Yuga, all people are the furthest removed from the divine, so modern men and women are likely in the same starting position in terms of development of Being.

Evola expands on the notion, stating that if soul means “psyche” or “principle of life,” then “it should signify in fact that woman not only has a soul but is eminently ‘soul,’” whereas man is not a soul but a “spirit.” He continues: “the point we believe settled is that woman is a part of ‘nature’ (in a metaphysical sense she is a manifestation of the same principle as nature) and that she affirms nature, whereas man by virtue of birth in the masculine human form goes tendentially beyond nature” (Eros, 151).

Deception and a Connection to Truth

Another attribute of absolute woman is deceitfulness. In fact, Evola states that it is so essential that telling lies has been acknowledged as an essential characteristic in female nature “at all times and in all places by popular wisdom” (Eros, 155). According to Weininger, this tendency is due to her lack of being. With no fixed essence, most women (and modern men) are attached to no transcendent truth, and therefore there is nothing to lie against—Truth only exists when one has substance and values. In Evola’s words:

Weininger observed that nothing is more baffling for a man than a woman’s response when caught in a lie. When asked why she is lying, she is unable to understand the question, acts astonished, bursts out crying, or seeks to pacify him by smiling. She cannot understand the ethical and transcendent side of lying or the fact that a lie represents damage to being and, as was acknowledged in ancient Iran, constitutes a crime even worse than killing. . . . The truth, pure and simple, is that woman is prone to lie and to disguise her true self even when she has no need to do so; this is not a social trait acquired in the struggle for existence, but something linked to her deepest and most genuine nature. (Eros, 155)

This quality of deceitfulness, while springing from the fundamental makeup of women, should not imply that it must be accepted as a given trait of all women, as some of Weininger’s writings imply. For, just like man, the ultimate goal of a woman’s existence is to connect with and live by the transcendent, which requires a fixation that cannot accept deception.

Woman’s Intuition, Man’s Ethics and Logic

Another idea Evola gets from Weininger is the notion that absolute woman, since she lacks being, also lacks memory, logic, and ethics (Eros, 154). In order to explain this, Evola distinguishes between two kinds of logic: everyday logic, which women can use quite successfully (though sometimes like a “sophist”) and “logic as a love of pure truth and inward coherence” (Eros, 154). This distinction can most commonly be seen when women use logic in arguments as a means to personal ends, rather than to arrive at a truth beyond their desires. Evola writes that woman, insofar as she is woman, will never know ethics in the categorical sense of pure inner law detached from every empirical, eudemonistic, sensitive, sentimental, and personal connection. Nothing in woman that may have an ethical character can be separated from instinct, sentiment, sexuality, of “life”; it can have no relationship with pure “being.”

Women’s primary tool of cognition is not logic but intuition and sensitivity (Eros, 154).

In explaining memory, Evola turns to Henri Bergson, who described two types of memory. One is more common in women: the memory connected to the subconscious, which may remember dreams, have premonitions, and unexpectedly recall forgotten experiences. The second type of memory, which women lack due to their fluid nature, is “determined, organized, and dominated by the intellect” (Eros, 154).

The Female Principle as Powerful, Sovereign, and Active

Generally the female principle is described as passive, and the male as active. According to Evola, this only is true on the outermost plane. On the subtle plane, he says, “it is the woman who is active and the man who is passive (the woman is ‘actively passive’ and the man ‘passively active’)” (Eros, 167–68). In Hindu terms the impassible spirit (purusa) is masculine, while the active matrix of every conditioned form (prakriti) is feminine (Revolt, 157). Thus, to use the creation of a child as an example, man gives his seed, but it is woman who actively creates and gives birth to the child.

Mythology supports the sovereign aspect of woman. Evola gives the examples of the Earth goddess Cybele drawn in a chariot led by two tame tigers, and the Hindu goddess Durga seated on a lion with reins in her hands (Eros, 167). Evola states that man knows of this sovereign quality in women, and “often owing to a neurotic unconscious overcompensation for his inferiority complex, he flaunts before woman an ostentatious manliness, indifference, or even brutality and disdain. But this secures him the advantage, on the contrary. The fact that woman often becomes a victim on an external, material, sentimental, or social level, giving rise to her instinctive ‘fear of loving,’ does not alter the fundamental structure of the situation” (Eros, 167).

Association with the Demonic and Aspiration

Another “negative” quality of the absolute woman is that of aspiration, in the sense of a sucking quality, which also is associated with the demonic. On a profane level, in a degenerate form, this could be the woman who is constantly demanding more from her husband and others—more time spent together, a better car, a bigger house, or more attention. Since she has no “soul” (as defined above), she must fill the void within herself by sucking the vital force from others in emotional, monetary, or temporal vampirism.

On a metaphysical level, this quality merely refers to the divine female, Shakti, pulling Shiva into the world of manifestation. Thus, it is not good or bad, except for Gnostics or other sects who believe the created world to be evil. As Evola states, woman “is oriented toward keeping that order which Gnosticism, in a dualistic background, called the ‘world of the Demiurge,’ the world of nature as opposed to that of the spirit” (Eros, 141). This demonic element is expressed in actual life when women draw men to the realm of earth, nature, and children. It is expressed in sex when man’s seed being draw into the woman, creating a child bound by nature. “Although ‘woman’ can give life,” Evola writes, “yet she shuts off or tends to shut off access to that which is beyond life” (Eros, 142).

In some Eastern thought, the man’s seed is thought to be the spiritual manhood—hence the formation of sects that teach men to retain this force to attain liberation rather than wasting it through ejaculation. Women properly trained are said to be able to capture this essence during sex, thus seducing the man into giving up his manhood.

The positive aspect of this trait lies in woman’s ability to overcome it, most often by following the path of the mother or lover. In the actions required by these paths (if following them in an attitude of self-sacrifice and not self-aggrandizement), she no longer drains others, but instead learns to build up a vital force within herself through renunciation of desires. By relinquishing the control of the ego/personality by instead being devoted to others, woman is able to fix herself to the transcendent.

Like the other qualities of absolute woman, that of aspiration also can be found in man, especially in the Kali Yuga. Evola refers to sexual practices found in Chinese Taoism, India, and Tibet, where the man sucks the vital female energy from a woman during sex, a technique he describes as bordering on “male ‘psychic’ vampirism” (Eros, 249).

The Value of Absolute Woman in the Modern World

In the Golden Age, we can imagine that the metaphysical elements comprising a person manifested in the proper way. In such a time, the highest classes gave birth to the highest people; race was indicative of a corresponding inner quality; beauty on the outside attested to an inner beauty; and physical gender aligned with the qualities of absolute man or woman.

But in the Kali Yuga, there are pariahs in the highest classes, men who act like women, and men of Aryan stock who do not embody any of the virtues attributed to their race. As Evola says, it is possible for a person to be a different sex in the body than they are in the soul. These cases are similar to those where individuals of one race “have the psychic and spiritual characteristics of another race”(Eros, 34).

Therefore, men today may not innately possess any virile seed, just as modern women do not necessarily express the absolute female principle. In reading Evola’s work, then, we must not mistakenly interpret what he says about absolute man or woman as corresponding with individual men and women of today. Modern men and women are almost completely removed from the deepest aspects of themselves, functioning only as personalities. Thus, a person’s sex or caste has little importance in determining vocations or social relations. What relevance, then, do Evola’s descriptions of absolute man and woman have in the modern world?

An answer is found in the existential Angst that defined the twentieth century. Martin Heidegger wrote of the inauthentic life, and Jean-Paul Sartre of bad faith; most people today still fit the description of mere personalities, lacking divine connections or the means to find them. In a world that has lost its values and connection to Tradition, discovering these principles in our innermost natures becomes even more important. By examining Evola’s work, and that of other Traditionalists, we can find our way back to our true selves, the true relation between the sexes, and a connection to the transcendent.

Amanda Bradley

Counter-Currents Publishing


  1. Hunter is correct. Amanda and her husband are fine people, indeed.

    Amanda represents exactly the sort of female that we need to attract to our Cause: intelligent, Tradition-oriented, attractive women of childbearing age.

  2. I have lately noticed various people enthralled with the writings of Julius Evola. I too studied his work, but came to the conclusion he represented part of the problem. Some years ago I last discussed him and wrote the following:

    Any number of writers, commentators, etc., know there are serious problems with Western Civilization and perceive that drastic action is needed if we are to survive as a people. While correct in his view that White civilization ” has carried out the most complete perversion of the rational order of things” and has thus made itself a modern day Golem standing in complete opposition to the ideas and behavior envisioned by the more far seeing among our race, Evola displays a shocking lack of vision himself.

    Evola obviously is as taken with what I call hippy charm as any liberal. He yearns for the continuation of mystery mongering so appealing to the lowest common denominator. Urging us to slack off on science and reason, he suggests a return to taking seriously the mumblings of gypsies, idealistic dreamers and other mystics. Whatever else can be said of our society, our technology and science are this Earth’s supreme achievement of all time.

    While perceiving that the white man must be a conqueror and a master, Evola’s thinking is mired in the old “let’s hire a coolie to carry it” mentality that is as much responsible for our present plight as any number of Jewish or liberal enemies. He is, furthermore, as fascinated with ruling over the mud races and inferior Asian stock of this world as an adolescent boy is at discovering his first crush: Empire! Slave labor! Get those boys in uniform, we need a war!

    Not least, Evola suffers from another dire malady afflicting so many members of our palsied race, viz, the ability to distinguish between an English gentleman and a full blooded African cannibal. Since our enemies talk about progress and claim to be adherents of science, we must, therefore, advocate the polar opposite. Such a mindset has been the chief reason the Right Wing has been so ineffective in combating the New World Order. “Whatever they do, we won’t!” seems to be their mantra.

    Julius Evola was right that we are far off course, but I’m afraid his own vision was shortsighted as those who are currently in the diversity love affair.

  3. Brutus,

    I concur with many of your criticisms of Evola, but I believe that both you and Evola are guilty of dichotomizing tradition and reason – wisdom and knowledge. The modern rejects tradition in favor of reason. The RadTrads reject reason in favor of tradition. On one end of the spectrum, we have these humiliations like Bill Gates who soar to dizzying heights of material progress through harnessing knowledge and yet remain entirely detached from the the deeper dimensions of life. On the other end, we have these humiliating spectacles where moderns attempt to reject what they know in favor of tradition, worshipping pagan deities they know to be bogus, wallowing in what Spengler calls “second religiousness”, or waxing nonsensically about Hyperborean demigods.

    Personally, I am rejecting the dichotomy and striving toward a reconciliation of wisdom and knowledge that I refer to as “evolutionary traditionalism”. The basic thrust of it is that religions and traditions are the evolved products of thousands of minds across both time and space arriving at emergent truths greater than one single mind can grasp. Both our wisdom and our knowledge are flawed and incomplete, but in different ways. I believe that the important work ahead of us is perfecting both of them, a process that converges on the common “sophia perennis”.

  4. The comments made by “Brutus” came from this Stormfront thread:

    I only bother to link to the thread because it contains an interesting excerpt from Evola, to which “Brutus” was responding.

    I question whether or not Brutus has read anything by Evola beyond a few excerpts on the internet. Anyone who thinks Evola was “taken with hippy (sic) charm” either doesn’t understand his world-view very well or they are deliberately mischaracterising it.

  5. Hunter,

    This is a good place to start:

    Also, I’m sure someone around OD HQ has a copy of the Tyr Journal. Dr. Jocelyn Godwin has an excellent essay in the first volume, which is entitled Julius Evola: A Philosopher for the Age of the Titans.

    I would also recommend picking up a copy of Evola’s Men Among the Ruins and giving it a read for yourself. It is not a lengthy book, and it contains an excellent 100 page introduction by H.T. Hansen, which is considered the definitive analysis of Evola’s political life and theory. You will be able to discern from reading that introduction whether or not you have a deeper interest in Evola.

    The publishers of the Tyr Journal delineate the principles of Radical Traditionalism as follows:


    It means to reject the modern, materialist reign of “quantity over quality,” the absence of any meaningful spiritual values, environmental devastation, the mechanization and over-specialization of urban life, and the imperialism of corporate monoculture, with its vulgar “values” of progress and efficiency. It means to yearn for the small, homogeneous tribal societies that flourished before Christianity—societies in which every aspect of life was integrated into a holistic system.


    Resacralization of the world versus materialism; folk/traditional culture versus mass culture; natural social order versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth; the tribal community versus the nation-state; stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources”; a harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes”; handicrafts and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

  6. Hmm.

    There are aspects of “Radical Traditionalism,” as it is defined here, that sound appealing—for example, conservation.

    What do the Radical Traditionalists have to say about the fact that the American conversation movement was a Progressive cause? It is peculiarly modern to care about the welfare of plant and animal species and to elevate the preservation of biodiversity over economic development.

  7. About five years ago, Bill White penned something called Radical Traditionalism: An Overview of the Aryan Faith.

    It is a sensationalistic, over-the-top essay marred by foppish Hitlerism (we are talking about Bill White here) which has little to do with the world-view of Julius Evola, but it’s worth reading:

    Bill was capable of producing thoughtful, well-researched essays on subjects of vital importance to our people. Here is one example, which focuses heavily on Evola’s thought:

    It is a shame that he decided to squander his ability.

  8. Hunter,

    Deep Ecology/True Conservationism is thoroughly rooted in folkish principles and it is complementary to HBD/Eugenics. I highly recommend the book Blood and Soil: Walther Darre and Hitler’s Green Party by Oxford historian Dr. Ana Bramwell, which delves deeply into this subject.

    Several years ago, I wrote an essay for the Heathen Front on this topic, drawing heavily on Bramwell’s research, which was entitled, “We are the True Greens!”

    I will dig it up and send it to you. Perhaps I’ll update it a bit and post it here.

  9. @Robert Campbell:
    Thanks for the links.

    If you’re interested in that, you have probably already read the Valorian Society’s series of books, including titles such as “Gangs and Governments.”

  10. Yes, Robert, Brutus, Jolt4444, and Robbie Burns sitting here at this computer right now are one and the same. Yes, my name is Robert, too. I have used several other ID’s over the past 10 or 12 years, too.

    Do you run searches on every post you read? I’m currious what made you do so here.

    And are you denying that Evola is “ate up” with mystic allusions and the like?

    BTW, the Oxford American Desk Dictionary tells me “Hippy” is acceptable, as I knew so since when I wrote that piece I was using Mozzila and had a spell check. The browser I am using right now doesn’t have a spell check, so I know I misspell some words.

  11. Oh, I think I understand now why you ran that search, Robert. I, too, am able to write a more sophisticated looking piece. But lately I simply have slacked off some on my Internet prose. You will forgive me for this temporary sloth, I trust, and next time not suspect me of searching the Net for responses to plagiarize in the name “Brutus” here on OD.

  12. I’m not familiar with the conservation movement in Europe.

    In America, the conservation movement grew out of various sources: Transcendentalism, the big game hunters, railroads who wanted to cash in on tourism, competition with Europe, and the ideal of democracy. The Ken Burns documentary about The National Parks wasn’t so bad.

    The idea that wildlife and the environment should be preserved for the enjoyment of all, as opposed to rich people and aristocrats, is thoroughly modern. Yellowstone was the first national park in world history.

    Similarly, the idea that “nature is sacred” and that the great natural wonders of the world (i.e., Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, the Redwoods) have more “spiritual meaning” than, say, the Medieval cathedrals comes from Transcendentalism.

    You should read up on John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, and the creator of Yosemite National Park:

    Like the conservationist movement, the eugenics movement was another Progressive reform cause. It sprung from the writings of Charles Darwin and Francis Galton in the late nineteenth century. Eugenics and conservation are both modern.

  13. Brutus,

    In your initial post, you wrote:

    “I have lately noticed various people enthralled with the writings of Julius Evola. I too studied his work, but came to the conclusion he represented part of the problem. Some years ago I last discussed him and wrote the following:”

    That comment implied two things:

    1) You have studied the work of Julius Evola over a number of years.

    2) The comment you posted here today was actually written “some years ago,” when you had “come to the conclusion [Evola] represented part of the problem.”

    Moreover, the fact that you retained that post, and reproduced it here years later, suggests that you ascribe some importance to it.

    Thus, I copied your comment, pasted it into google, and hit enter, expecting to find some analysis of Evolian thought carried out over a series of years (something along the lines of John Reilly’s site). Instead, I found one comment on Stormfront in which you essentially dismissed Evola as a hippie.

    I was not insinuating that you were a plagiarist, or searching for personal information on you, or anything nefarious.

    When you announce in your comment that you have already published it somewhere else, you shouldn’t be surprised when readers seek to cross-reference the two comments.

    Note: Please confine further comments on this thread to the relevant subject of sexual polarity and Amanda’s essay on the topic.

  14. the female principle is described as passive, and the male as active. According to Evola, this only is true on the outermost plane. On the subtle plane, he says, “it is the woman who is active and the man who is passive (the woman is ‘actively passive’ and the man ‘passively active’)” (Eros, 167–68).

    I run across this formulation in a great deal of Hermetic occultism. It seems to derive from Indian sources, usually with multiple planes of emanation – physical, astral, and so on. Dion Fortune, for example, talks of four levels – the man is active physically and mentally, the woman is active astrally and spiritually.

    I do not know whether this apparently Indian notion of planes extends to historically verifiable pre-20th century rune magic. (Of course, by the 20th century, any number of modern occultists were claiming to teach rune magic, mostly without historical documentation.) Stephen Flowers/Edred Thorsson would claim that the mythological worlds of Asgard, Alfheim, etc. can be considered as planes, but I do not find his arguments convincing.

    There is a similarity to Chinese mysticism, in that Chinese works talk of Heaven, Humanity, and Earth. The Norse works talk of the god-world, the middle-world, and the underworld. This triune system has a male, female, and neuter element: the human world is neuter or balanced; Heaven is masculine; Earth is feminine.

  15. John Walters:

    I haven’t seen Valorian Society works since the early 90s. Are they available anywhere today? Love to get my grubby hands on ’em.

  16. VALORIC FIRE AND A WORKING PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY by The Valorian Society 1 used from $80.00!!!! wow! i sure aint paying 80 bux for a used paperback

  17. “Hunter Wallace says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:06 am

    I know Amanda Bradley and her husband. Great people.”

    Absolutely. And women like her are rare.

  18. “worshipping pagan deities they know to be bogus”… I guess i’ve been worshipping bogus Gods for over 20 years now (as does my wife, many of my relatives and most of my friends), and my kids were born worshipping said bogus Gods. Which version of the Jewish zombie do you worship, and how is he less ‘bogus’ than other gods? The one with the priesthood of homos and pedophiles who practice anthropophy every sunday? Or the one whose dad YHVH stops the sun so the jews can more thoroughly murder their enemies? or the one who says no women or lusters after women shall ever enter the kingdom of heaven? (Careful, each of the thousands of cults & sects of zombie worshippers claim that theirs is right, and the rest of you are going to hell. Make sure you picked the right one…the multiple choice spiritual pop quiz has only one correct answer and there are no cliff notes). The Devil’s in the details…Are you a zombie worshipper by choice or because your ancestors were forced at sword point to worship him? or that they were tortured into it? Snide digs like yours aren’t exactly conducive to the promotion of white unity (there are alot of non-christian white people in the world), but it makes me proud to be going to a different heaven (a word taken from germanic heathenry like: god, good, evil, sin, hell, etc) than you. Don’t bother responding because I’ve said all I needed to on this.

  19. Thankfully this isn’t a political site where people care what kinds of impressions are made on the larger populace by what is posted here.

  20. Transcendentalism imported from German Philosophy, namely German Idealism. Of course American Pragmatism is also based on GI. You would be amazed at how much came from Germany.
    American public schools copied after the Prussian model.

  21. TR,


    Hunter acknowledged that he was not familiar with the conservationist movement in Europe/Germany.

    I hope he will read the book my Bramwell that I recommended.

  22. ‘ i sure aint paying 80 bux for a used paperback’

    I know some Valorian books can be obtained by interlibrary loan; I don’t know if anyone holds the copyrights.

    If the copyrights have expired, the books might be in the public domain. I will research that.

    If I can verify that the books are out of copyright, it might be possible to make copies available.

  23. Notes:
    1) Laura Wood’s blog “The Thinking Housewife” is indeed interesting.

    In particular,

    suggests that the authoress might have some interest in esoterica.

    However, she does not delve into the details as Amanda Bradley did.

    2) There seems to be a publisher who claims copyright to the Valorian Society books, so it might be inappropriate to simply share copies for free.

    However, it might be possible to make excerpts or something. Email me at jwalters AT hmamail dot com and be aware that the reply message will show unusual mail headers.

Comments are closed.