Thursday, July 06, 2017

Evola in the Ukrainian parliament

Ukraine needs to be added to the list of countries where a political party inspired by Julius Evola is represented in parliament. The party in question is the National Corps (Національний корпус) of Andriy Biletsky (Андрій Євгенович Білецький, pictured). It currently has only two seats, but it does have its own militia, the Azov Regiment, a volunteer unit now under the umbrella of the Ukrainian National Guard that operates against pro-Russian forces in the eastern Ukraine.

The National Corps also has an international relations section headed by Elena Semenyaka, a young political scientist whose academic specialization is the Conservative Revolution. Semenyaka was previously identified with Alexander Dugin and the Russian Eurasianists, but since Dugin and his Russian followers support the pro-Russian forces in the eastern Ukraine, Semenyaka and her colleagues are now engaged in trying to steer the European right away from Russia towards an “Intermarium Union” that aims to unite Ukraine with other eastern and central European countries, in effect a rightist version of the Visegrád Group. The Intermarium Union takes its name from a plan developed by the interwar Polish prime minister, Marshal Józef Piłsudski.

Interest in Evola in Ukraine is not restricted to the National Corps. It also includes members of Plomin’ (Пломінь, Flame), a “literary club” in Kiev that meets for lectures on philosophers and political thinkers, notably Evola and the thinkers of the Conservative Revolution.


Mark Sedgwick said...

A Ukrainian correspondent suggests that as well as the National Corps MPs mentioned in my post, I should add 5 of the 7 MPs that Svoboda (Свобода) has. Svoboda is certainly a Right party, and it would be interesting to hear more about their MPs' views on Evola.

Maciej Kochanowicz said...

It would be probably more accurate to characterize Piłsudski as the Polish interwar leader and just a prime minister (there were many of those during the interwar period and Piłsudski always preferred a role of the leader without an official position). Anyway, his concepts of intermarium were developed long before he shortly held post of a prime minister and even before Poland regained independence in 1918 (drawing from previous ideas of Prince Adam Czartoryski among others).

Canadian Traditionalist said...

This blog post brings up an important and related question in my view. One which I am afraid does not get enough traction on this blog and elsewhere. That is whether traditionalism as a philosophy is indeed compatible with the very idea of a nation-state and its nationalism. The idea of the nation is largely the product of post-revolutionary bourgeois political philosophy and the realization of their original economic interests as a class; that is the creation of confined capitalist markets with clear rules of trade. They were motivated by bourgeois materialism and largely still are. They constitute the gears of the modern secular Frankenstein. The liberal nation-state and the hierarchy of transcendence which is in my view essential to any traditionalist point of view seem fundamentally non sequitur, at least in a Guénonian and Evolian sense. This has led Benoist, Dugin and others to form macro-ideas of political action such as pan-europeanism, eurasianism and now intermarium. The tension that is going on in right wing movements in the Ukraine and in many other countries is an attempt to answer the question of which micro or macro political structure is best to concretize their ideas. But what ultimate interest are they serving? It seems to me that the problem from a traditionalist perspective is that this is a question which should remain strictly one of strategy. In other words; the strategic choice of a particularly confined field of combat at any given time. It should not become an end in and of itself. The field of combat of a traditionalist should never be limited. At times however in choosing a necessary strategy of confined political action certain traditionalists confuse the nation for tradition. Worse, they try to give transcendental meaning to a liberal structure which intrinsically has none. Does this not risk strengthening the very Frankenstein some are struggling against?