The New York Times Cites Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists

Italian philosopher, Julius Evola. Cited by The New York Times.

The New York Times recently published an article that was, at best a poorly done hit piece; or, at worst, a poorly done piece that gives us insight into the paper’s view of the dangers of uncurated knowledge.

Jason Horowitz thinks he has the goods on White House counselor Stephen K. Bannon. The Times writer’s story in the February 10 edition bears the lurid headline: “Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.”

Over the course of the next 1,500 words, Horowitz cites that same thinker as he summarizes Julius Evola’s philosophy and life and calls upon Evola experts who, themselves citing Evola, discuss how his philosophy is seeing a resurgence among the denizens of the alt-right. Oddly enough, Horowitz somehow forgets to include Bannon’s actual citation of the Italian thinker until the very end of the article. Instead, the opening of the story includes a hyperlink—as if to say, “feel free to check it out for yourself, reader, but rest assured, it’s plenty fascist.” That’s a bit of a dodge on Horowitz’s part, though. One would think that that a piece purporting to examine Bannon’s affinity for Evola, the reader might be treated to a little more substance. Nope. Sorry.

Here’s what you get instead:

But for all the examination of those remarks, a passing reference by Mr. Bannon to an esoteric Italian philosopher has gone little noticed, except perhaps by scholars and followers of the deeply taboo, Nazi-affiliated thinker, Julius Evola.

If you click on the hyperlink—go ahead; we’ll be here when you get back—it becomes apparent why. Here’s the exchange:

Question: Obviously, before the European elections the two parties had a clear link to Putin. If one of the representatives of the dangers of capitalism is the state involvement in capitalism, so, I see there, also Marine Le Pen campaigning in Moscow with Putin, and also UKIP strongly defending Russian positions in geopolitical terms.

Harnwell: These two parties have both been cultivating President Putin [unintelligible].

Bannon: I think it’s a little bit more complicated. When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.

One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism — and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States. They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.

The passing reference is not a hat-tip or even quote of Evola, as the headline implies, but rather an examination of his influences on a senior adviser to another world leader.

So, let’s recap. Bannon uses Evola to explain someone else’s motivations and the Times concludes that…what?…Bannon is influenced by Evola? Nope, can’t get there directly, so instead Horowitz decides to go the innuendo route.

Horowitz proceeds to quote white nationalist Richard Spencer, whose thinking apparently aligns with that of Horowitz and Times, that Bannon’s mere knowledge of Evola is headline worthy and signals some seismic sea-change in conservatism itself:

Mr. Spencer said “it means a tremendous amount” that Mr. Bannon was aware of Evola and other Traditionalist thinkers.

“Even if he hasn’t fully imbibed them and been changed by them, he is at least open to them,” he said. “He at least recognizes that they are there. That is a stark difference to the American conservative movement that either was ignorant of them or attempted to suppress them.”

Putting aside for a moment the irony of the Times citing a white nationalist while trying to demonize someone for citing a fascist philosopher. Let’s be honest about the Times’ intentions here.

The Times staff are well aware that based on the title alone, most people will just share the article on social media without reading it, much less bother to click the hyperlink to examine the primary material. The article is not really designed be read, just to be shared—it’s really is just a glorified Wikipedia entry on Evola.  Like most of the clickbait responsible for the decline in the public’s trust of journalism, its purpose is to confirm a worldview among those who would share it.  It’s merely another grasp at any straw in the hopes binding them together into a fascio of accusation thrown Bannon’s way.

If, however, this article is not mere smarm and political calumny trying to create guilt by association, and instead it reflects an earnest concern by the Times that Bannon’s mere knowledge of Evola is somehow dangerous, it’s revealing. What it reveals is a much more troubling worldview and culture among the Times staff and, by extension, those it considers to be its core readership than it reveals about Bannon. In this light, the article exposes a line of reasoning that can serve to explain so much of the recent anti-free speech hysteria and trigger warning phenomenon seen around the country.

Normally being well read and having knowledge of obscure yet influential philosophy and its impact on foreign policy would be seen as something to put in the plus side of the ledger in a determination of whether an advisor to the president is competent and worthy of his station. In this case, however, according to the Times, having knowledge is a negative. It’s not that Bannon is being accused of following or even quoting Evola (although the headline implies it). He’s being accused of knowing about Evola. Knowledge itself, in this case, is portrayed as a corrupting force.

It should be noted that the Times which continuously lamented the Republican Party and Trump’s, anti-intellectualism has had a change of heart on the issue and is now suspicious of someone for being well read. Maybe this isn’t ironic, but instead speaks to a perception among the Times staff that knowledge is a dangerous thing that needs to be curated (by them).

When we accede to this kind of knowledge-is-dangerous view of the world, we accept the possibility that merely coming into contact with ideas somehow poisons us. In this view human beings have no agency and therefore they must be protected from, or at the very least, warned against, certain knowledge. This kind of thinking is exactly why we now have warning labels on printed versions of the United States Constitution as well as proposed and enacted trigger warnings on books such as Huckleberry Finn, The Great Gatsby, and Mrs. Dalloway. It’s a kind of thinking that allows rioters to feel no philosophical uncertainty or moral shame when destroying property, setting fires and attacking people for having a desire to speak about and listen to things that are controversial.

This view of knowledge is inimical to the liberal ideal and respect for the humanistic endeavor; an endeavor whose furtherance is predicated upon the acquisition and synthesis of disparate, sometimes uncomfortable knowledge. Instead of seeing the acquisition of knowledge as a good, the Times seems to imply that human consciousness is something so delicate and frail that it would lose any moral and ethical rudder when coming into contact with philosophy that it considers dangerous.  Those who hold that knowledge itself is dangerous are the same zealots who would control its dissemination and disabuse us of any ability to judge for ourselves.

Horowitz’s article thus provides us an illuminating window into the soul of the Times and exposes a more serious cultural dilemma the aging grey lady faces: How to straddle the gap between profitable clickbait partisanship and intellectually elitist information curation. Evidence above suggests that the Times may have figured out a way to do both.

Of course, in writing this piece I, too, cited “an Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists,” so I don’t know if anything I say can be trusted.

You have been warned.

About Boris Zelkin

Russian-born Boris Zelkin is an Emmy Award-winning composer who has written the music to countless films, documentaries, television shows and major sporting events, including the Tucker Carlson show, Bill O'Reilly, "Gosnell," “FrackNation,” Citizen United’s “Rediscovering God in America II,” Roger Simon’s “Lies and Whispers,” the America's Cup, the Masters, the World Skating Championships, the U.S. Open, NASCAR, the Stanley Cup Championship, and the theme to ESPN’s NCAA championship coverage. Zelkin received his B.A. from Colgate University and earned his M.A. in religion from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He has written extensively on the culture for various online journals and was a major contributor to the recently released “Bond Forever,” a book about the James Bond franchise. He currently resides in Los Angeles but is always looking for a way out.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

10 responses to “The New York Times Cites Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists”

  1. An incisive analysis of Left media tactics. I would also place Kristol’s reference to Carl Schmitt in his Tweetjob on Anton in the same class.

  2. The Wikipedia article on Julius Evola has already been updated with the requisite anti-Bannon smears.

    “Meet The Philosopher Who’s a Favorite of Steven Bannon and Mussolini”!!!

    Goebbels would be impressed by the way they delight in their own dishonesty.

    • The Feb 11th version was even worse. Bannon and TRUMP were in the introductory paragraph:

      President Donald Trump’s chief adviser Steve Bannon, in a speech at the
      Vatican, noted Evola’s influence on the Traditionalist movement and Eurasianism
      favored by Dugin and the alt-right

      This was removed (though Bannon reference was allowed to be left in but moved into the body after argument between ‘removers’ and ‘remainers’; decision tied to some ridiculous thought that because this was in the NYT, it carried weight…).

      Anyway, reason for the removal of Trump, and demotion from Intro to Body:

      Tying Evola to Bannon in the introductory paragraph, is a largely
      politically motivated edit. Furthermore, it is meaningless to international

      Constant tug of war at Wiki edit. In ‘talk’ you can see they’re going crazy over the volume of ‘edits’ for this articular enttry due to the exposure MSM gave to Evola.

      Side note: there’s this blogger who lives in Russia -I think in Moscow- (has lived abroad; I believe also educated abroad [and apparently is not a Putin fan]) who wrote a little about this and thinks the ‘influence’ of Dugin on Putin is a stretch.

  3. Evola may be one of a few people who are certified non-Fascists, as may be seen from the following account of Evola’s trial, in post-war Italy, for fomenting Fascism: “He [Evola] asked the prosecutor, Dr. Sangiorgi, where in his published writings he had defended ‘distinctively Fascist ideas’. Sangiorgi admitted that there were no such specific passages, but that the general spirit of his works promoted ‘Fascist ideas,’ such as monocracy, hierarchism, aristocracy, or elitism. Evola responded, ‘I should say that if such are the terms of the accusation, I would be honored to see seated here next to me as defendants men such as Aristotle, Plato, the Dante of De Monarchia, and so on, up to Metternich and Bismarck.’ At this point, Evola’s lawyer Carnelutti shouted out ‘La polizia e andata in cerca anche di costoro!’ (‘The police have gone to look for them, too!’)”

    Evola was found by the jury to be not just “not guilty” but “innocent” [a verdict that is an option in Italian criminal law, apparently]. J. Evola, “A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism” (introduction by E. Christian Kopff).

  4. Well, since I was up to this point entirely ignorant of this Evola, in my innocence I should make a perfect candidate for Presidential Advisor. . . Oh wait; did I just refer to him in a blog comment? Horrors, I’m polluted! Where can I go for absolution? Honestly, your Honor, I thought it was a misprint for a nasty African disease!

    /Mr Lynn

  5. Excellent piece Boris, thank you.
    I think it is much more likely that the Times is simply trying to accomplish guilt by association and innuendo.
    Keep up the good fight.

  6. Evola was a brilliant traditionalist. Everyone should read his “Revolt Against the Modern World”