Yevgen Onazkyi was born on January 14, 1894 in the family of the historian Dometiy Onazkyi in the small town of Gluhiv. He studied in the history and philosophy department of the Kyiv University. Having a general respect among the students, Onazkyi became the students’ representative in the Central Council (Rada) in Kyiv in 1917. Later, due to his diplomatic duties, he moved at first to Paris and then to Rome where he lived up to his arrest by the Germans in 1943. Supporting the nationalistic ides, Onazkyi entered the OUN (Organization of the Ukrainian Nationalists) in 1929, got to know the colonel Konovalez, became one of his closest companions and publishes his works in several nationalistic periodicals. At the same time, he was teaching in Naples and then in Rome. After the World War II was over, he was released and moved to Argentina where he continued his active civil activities.
Living in Italy, he became a witness of the fascists coming to power – not a grotesque scarecrow which is still used by the lefts and liberals to scare the average citizen, but the mighty political movement which was trying to save the own land and the whole Europe from the decline abyss. Onazkyi understood the huge potential of the fascists’ revolution and in his publications showed the positive aspects of the fascists’ reality.
Perhaps, the philosopher idealized the movement led by Mussolini and wasn’t able to criticize it “from the right” as it was done by Julius Evola. But the fascism had really something to be loved for, as this political and spiritual movement started the sacred fight – fight against “materialistic Marxism which ruled over the working people; against demoliberalism which ruled in state authorities; against parliamentarism which put the legislative power over the executive, paralyzing its activities; against internationalism which put the vital interests of the nation on the altar of dubious abstract ideologies; against pacifism which weakened the energy and the moral resistance of the nations; against excessive individualism which sacrificed the interests of the whole to the interests of the separate individuals or groups; against excessive collectivism (communism) which destroyed the private initiative and possibility of developing the individual abilities…”
Onazkyi was attracted not only by the nationalistic character of fascism but also by those elements of the conservative revolution which it expressed. That’s why he to some extent “popularized” fascism on the Ukrainian grounds, however stressing that the Ukrainian and Italian people exist under very different conditions, as “fascism was born and acted the whole activity in the limits of its own country, in the opposition to its own government, on its own national territory and meant not creating a new state but renewal of the old state. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian nationalistic movement faces foreign government, has no own national state and its main representatives are located on foreign territory. Only this very difference is so essential that it’s leading to quite a number of differences in tactics and activities of relevant alignments”.
Living in Italy, he became a witness of the fascists coming to power – not a grotesque scarecrow which is still used by the lefts and liberals to scare the average citizen, but the mighty political movement which was trying to save the own land and the whole Europe from the decline abyss. Onazkyi understood the huge potential of the fascists’ revolution and in his publications showed the positive aspects of the fascists’ reality.
Perhaps, the philosopher idealized the movement led by Mussolini and wasn’t able to criticize it “from the right” as it was done by Julius Evola. But the fascism had really something to be loved for, as this political and spiritual movement started the sacred fight – fight against “materialistic Marxism which ruled over the working people; against demoliberalism which ruled in state authorities; against parliamentarism which put the legislative power over the executive, paralyzing its activities; against internationalism which put the vital interests of the nation on the altar of dubious abstract ideologies; against pacifism which weakened the energy and the moral resistance of the nations; against excessive individualism which sacrificed the interests of the whole to the interests of the separate individuals or groups; against excessive collectivism (communism) which destroyed the private initiative and possibility of developing the individual abilities…”
Onazkyi was attracted not only by the nationalistic character of fascism but also by those elements of the conservative revolution which it expressed. That’s why he to some extent “popularized” fascism on the Ukrainian grounds, however stressing that the Ukrainian and Italian people exist under very different conditions, as “fascism was born and acted the whole activity in the limits of its own country, in the opposition to its own government, on its own national territory and meant not creating a new state but renewal of the old state. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian nationalistic movement faces foreign government, has no own national state and its main representatives are located on foreign territory. Only this very difference is so essential that it’s leading to quite a number of differences in tactics and activities of relevant alignments”.
Having a positive attitude to the Italian fascism, Onazkyi didn’t spare the German national-socialism. Undoubtedly, fascism and nazism had quite a few in common, and Onazkyi underlined this: “Both movements are purely national movements which are based on the nation as ethical, social and historical unity. Both are the people’s, mass movements as they are based on the people and care about satisfaction of their demands and interests, and at the same time educate the people in such way that the will of individuals would be subordinated to the will of the organized collective and that the people develop the strong discipline and self-sacrifice for the benefit of the collective which will finally be the organized people, that is nation. Both of them are ethical movements which out the political ideals over economic interests and have the slogans of “ethical state” which cares about educating its citizens, as well as define the “politics as the highest ethics”. Both of them pay more attention to the collective forma that to the individual “freedoms”. Both of them tend to the unitary construction of the nation as the necessary base of the national solidarity in the world competition. Both of them recognize as necessary existence of the strong authoritative power for the right developing of the political life of the nation. Both of them deny the necessity and unavoidability of the class fight and put as prevailing cooperation of all working forces of the nation where every social stratum is a necessary part of the national organism”.
According to Onazkyi: “The victory of the national socialism in Germany rose huge satisfaction in fascists’ Italy at first: fascists considered the national socialists to be their brothers-in-arms in the fight against the old, obsolete world and the national socialism to be the branch of that “universal fascism” which, with Rome as its spiritual centre, had to revive Europe after decline caused by the ruling demoliberal and socialistic doctrines”. However, the German national socialism had much negative which could be criticized both from the position of the Italian fascism and Ukrainian nationalism. Onazkyi criticized the nazism first of all for its anti-Christianity, racism and imperialistic chauvinism.
Onazkyi’s critics of the German national socialism was very well-aimed as it targeted the very essence of its “heresies” which in fact led to the defeat of not only Germany but also the whole Europe. Though it could end in quite a different way.. Perhaps, several national-conservative, “fascistic” revolutions couldn’t bring Europe to the Middle Ages und defeat the Modern, however they could have stopped the decline, socialism and liberalism as well as the orgy of capitalism. If not the demon-possessed Hitler, morbid imperialism, satanic denial of Christianity…
After the World War II Onazkyi continued standing for the Christian, nationalistic-conservative positions. With even stronger ardour he went on attacking the demoliberal ideology and the capitalistic social and economic system. He criticized technocracy which is just squashing the human being and causes physical and spiritual degeneration as well as the bourgeois social and economic system which puts people on limit of the mental insanity. He opposed the labour as creation and struggle to the capitalistic and socialistic forms of alienated or diverted labour. With these ideas, to some extent, he resembles the German nationalist philosopher Ernst Jünger. Onazkyi defined the labour as “service to the Motherland”, “distinction of the spiritual aristocrats”, “prayer for God”.
As we see, living “in the twilight of the West”, Onazkyi was trying to fight against the darkness of the materialistic doctrines and was rejoicing at each ray of light of the Reconquista. However, it’s most likely that one cannot stop the sun motion across the skies of the World History. Anyway, this should scare us off: the dawn will definitely break out, if not in this life, then in life after death. Heading towards in the darkness, we have to fearlessly light up the torches not to get lost on the way to our heavenly homeland. Nothing bad happens if our fire will also burn some shacks built by the Antichrist…
