![julius_evola_by_riversofblood-d8o7s9k[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IOYDPuD.jpg "julius_evola_by_riversofblood-d8o7s9k[1].jpg")
Was Julius Evola an angry crank who wrote ahistorical screeds, or has his work been increasingly vindicated by the course of modernity?
i don't know Anon why don't you listen to the man and judge for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiCtdi5nCoA
>>801144
>ahistorical
Eternal.
>>801251
Or should I say suprahistorical.
>>801144
>tacogirl
>>801251
I mean that his critics often seem to start with the notion that he played a bit loose with his interpretations of history in order to make historical events fit into his social theories more easily.
>>801381
It's not that the quote is "wrong," but people criticise Evola on vagueness grounds. Using metaphysical statements in place of more precise axiomatic arguments, etc.
>>801381
There's only one group of people who disagree with him...the vile, alien masses that consume mindlessly...and have fully turned their backs on their glorious past...
Nothing is more telling then when the good guys like me are ignored...no, passed by, like another product, consumed...when traditionist nice guys like us are the only ones who should be allowed to breed...
>>801420
That's because they think metaphysics is dead. From the perspective of tradition, there aren't many good reasons to believe this. He's practically a Hegelian, the metaphysics is supposed to be symbolism you work through to get to a higher truth. It's wrong to treat him as anything but a mystic, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way.
>>801592
Metaphysics isn't dead but mysticism is complete joke by modern standards, every mystic should be treated as fiction or entertainment writer at best.
>>801667
The key word in your argument being modern standards. Is it surprising that a thinker who rejected modern ideals would be ignored by the modern world?
>>801460
nice strawman
>>801667
>modern standards
I think Evola himself rejects these on adequately established philosophical grounds. There's no especially good reason (beyond the literal current year meme) to think that the current ethical and epistemological norms are correct. This isn't to say they should be discarded no matter what in every case, but if you aren't skeptical of them I don't know what to think of you.
>>801144
Evola himself admitted that he idealized history to give a better illustration of Tradition. His goal was never to claim that the Holy Roman Empire was some perfect Traditionalist imperium, rather he used history to give concrete examples of his principles, even if they didn't in actuality fit the ideal. Kind of like how Platonic forms are the perfect version of real concrete things- you can reference a circle to talk about the form of the circle, but the real concrete circle you reference is never going to match up to its guiding archetype.
>>801592
He's not a Hegelian, Guenon was a Hegelian, that is the main difference between them
Plus, Evola was a tantrist
>>805354
He refers to Hegel very frequently and describes things in practically Hegelian terms. I wouldn't call him an actual Hegelian but I don't think he rejects Hegel completely.
>>801144
He's a crank. People who believe in cyclical history or a "golden/degenerate age" in any form invariably are.
>>805679
So do you buy into Whig history, or do you just never assign value to anything?
>>805679
>denies that we live in an age of degeneracy
>attaches a webm of a slut rubbing her breasts on close-up
Go figure.
>>805679
>>805679
>>805705
Evola was the tail-end of a very long right-wing reaction to modern society that began in the early 19th century. His embrace of esotericism and the like should have been a giant indication of this - it's essentially an outgrowth of the spiritual movement at the end of the 1800s. His works possess all the salient features. If you look at many of the reactionaries of the time, you see Evola is not terribly different - although he is much more accessible.
>>805354
>Guenon was a Hegelian
What ?
The only modern European Philosophers he even remotely cared for were ones who carried on Scholasticism to some degree like Leibniz, Descartes, and the other 17th century rationalists.
Where does Guenon reference Hegel ?
>>805695
Yes, I'm a Whiggist. I don't believe there has ever been a golden age because humanity has always been suffused by absolute depravity.
>>805865
>A Calvinist who buys into Whig history
I want to die
>>805871
Now you know why Scots drink so much.
>>801667
>Metaphysics isn't dead
Indeed. Evola should've read his Heidegger.
>>805871
whats wrong with that
calvinist annihilationism is the best flavour of christianity tbqh
>>801144
I've always respected 'revolutionaries' in a non-edgy non-fedora sense that they always question the common "authorities" on any field of science, morality or philosophy.
I respect people like Aleister Crowley, who were openly bi-sexual, drug-positive and even a self-proclaimed Satanist during a very puritan Victorian English period.
Evola owes much to Guénon, who was his mentor in a sense that the (Western) Civilization and mankind itself is living in the midst of Kali-Yuga or Hesiod's Iron Age. Even though I respect Evola, he has his shortcomings in dealing with the more esoteric and metaphysical elements of the Tradition, while Guénon tends to a more 'academic' perspective.
>>805913
I don't see how God's love could possibly manifest in an absolutely depraved world unworthy of salvation. Calvinists claim that this happened despite God despising all of us and results in God only saving the Elect out of a kind of grudging fulfillment of a contractual obligation He has to Himself. I see no reason to think that an absolutely depraved world would be worthy of salvation in the first place.
>>805983
Evola had a high respect for Aleister Crowley or "The Great Beast"
http://www.gornahoor.net/library/EvolaOnCrowley.pdf
>>805983
I don't really get what he grounds the capital T, Tradition in tbqh.
I have admittedly not read any of his works, but his wikipedia page says he was influenced by both Stirner and Nietzsche, which would make me imagine that he would need a seriously foolproof set of assumptions in play for anything to be justified(as I imagine he should've known).
>>806086
>e was influenced by both Stirner and Nietzsche, which would make me imagine that he would need a seriously foolproof set of assumptions in play
It's hardly a foolproof set of assumptions; no set of assumptions is foolproof because it's a set of assumptions, and assumptions can be wrong.
The influence is definitely there, but he actually ends up being less edgy than Nietzsche or Stirner and he's rather critical of Nietzsche.
What they have in common is a deep distrust of Marxism, liberalism, and democracy. They all emphasize the importance of the production of superior individuals who grasp their own nature and attempt to bring it out. Evola is far from an anarchist, and he's not nearly as destructive as Nietzsche, in the end.
>>806115
They have a deep distrust of narratives in general you mean, not necessarily Marxism, liberalism, and democracy, but those as well.
The only difference seems to me is that Evola is someone who embraced another narrative that stood in opposition to anything that could be considered "egalitarian" or liberal, which I don't think you can specifically pin either Nietzsche or Stirner for.
>>806115
>They all emphasize the importance of the production of superior individuals who grasp their own nature and attempt to bring it out.
That basically died with the Napoleonic Wars.
>>806134
>narratives in general
>Evola is someone who embraced another narrative
The reason you don't get the capital-T is because you think of everything as a narrative. Tradition goes beyond narrative to include material and spiritual relations between objects and subjects in history. If you think the entirety of events that have occurred in reality are nothing more than pure narrative, or if you think I'm claiming as much, I don't know where that idea comes from, but it's not something I'm willing to accept without argumentation.
>>806140
Which is why these philosophers advocate the return of such people. It wouldn't make sense for any of them to write what they wrote prior to the French Revolution.
>>806152
The point I'm trying to make is that Stirner and Nietzsche recognized that whatever kind of narrative you create, or idea you internalize, it all suffers from the same faults in some way, and they took that thinking more or less to it's conclusion.
Whereas Evola, since he was himself an aristocrat in many ways, simply continued viewing the world as an aristocrat, and never had the impetus to challenge his own thoughts.
>>806178
>never had the impetus to challenge his own thoughts.
Do you think that's true? Do you actually buy into Marxist narratives according to which only the proletariat can ever have accurate knowledge or legitimately criticize something?
>>806178
How do you know he didn't criticize his own views or ideas. We only have his books showing the guidelines for his theory of society not the steps that took it there. Moreover we know he had to do some evaluation as he references societies, figures and thoughts from AL over the world and time
>>805679
Source?
>>801460
traditionalist guys are not nice at all, they understand the need for a male dominated society, not for their sake and getting to stick their dick in a cunt XD but because without it everything collapses.
>>806228
>traditionalist guys are not nice at all
Traditionalism involves a rejection of the concept of niceness and its replacement with higher forms of interpersonal affection.
>>801144
>or has his work been increasingly vindicated by the course of modernity?
This is a really interesting notion and I have come to the view that in many ways it has. I wouldn't say that I'm in line with every view he holds but very much of what he says about progress and modernity I think is actually turning out to have been the winning argument all along.
>>806242
No, it just presupposes one rung of the hierarchy's bullshit has precedence over the other despite the utter banality of it all.
>>808510
I try to remind myself that even back in the roman days they were bitching about the new kids and their newfangled beliefs our new system seems so much worse and depressing. At least the hippies hated government and loved personal freedom not like the current bootlickers.
Evola is a pretty hot topic lately it seems to me.
Why?
>According to Evola, the more recent Northern, White and Indo-European peoples (despite racial mixing) implicitly preserved more of the primordial Arctic Hyperborean blood-memory and are objectively spiritually superior to the archaic, matter-obsessed degenerate remnants of the races of the South. Evola saw the sign of the Hyperborean Tradition[65] and its antagonism with the forces of Antitradition in the Indian mythology surrounding the Vedic divinity Indra (cf. Thor), who is "fair of cheek" (Rig Veda, I.9.3) and with his "fair-complexioned friends" (I.100.18) annihilates the lawless black Dasyu, "giving protection to the Aryan color" (III.34.9), blowing to nothingness "the swarthy skin which Indra hates" (IX.73.5).
>Flowering forth in the Greek, pre-Celtic, Indo-Aryan, Aryo-Persian, Armenic, Roman, Germanic, Tiwanaku, Teotihuacán, early Chinese, Aztec-Nahua, Inca and first Egyptian dynasties' representatives, with more or less ethnic but great spiritual purity, the "Northern Light" was considerably lost to the Atlantean offshoot which defiled itself through spiritual integration into the spiritual lunar sphere of the world of the "Mother" or "Earth" of the "Southern Light" and further miscegenation with bestial, dark Lemurian stocks. Revolt Against the Modern World presents world-history to be the saga of dualistic conflict between the "Northern Light" and the "Southern Light": on one side stand the Uranian, patriarchal stocks of purer Hyperborean lineage, climatically harshly conditioned and heroic-minded celebrators of the winter solstice; on the other stand the chthonic and titanized inferior races and the spiritually/ethnically bastardized heirs of the fallen Atlantean civilization captured by the "Southern Light" and its sacerdotal and naturalistic-pantheist religion of promiscuous vegetal and animal fertility.
What did he mean by this?
>>808834
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arctic_Home_in_the_Vedas
>>808546
What hierarchy are you talking about? A social hierarchy or a hierarchy of kindnesses? In any society that has existed, "one rung of the hierarchy's bullshit" has taken precedence over others. The failed utopian experiments of the last century don't prove anything except that socialism kills.
>>801144
>Was Julius Evola an angry crank
yes
>>805679
haha yeah bro just jerk off all the time hhnnngghh it's all just chemicals maaaan nothing matters hurghh haha cum everywhere yeah bro 2016 COME ON haha
>Evola
The ultimate spook.
I am an italian with an history degree and I studied the subject, so here it is my contribution.
Evola was not stupid nor he was illiterate; but he wasn't a real master of his art. these are some proofs:
-His translation of Bachofen selected works have some incredible errors; while he was very good at german he made some errors that make you think about his cultural abilities.
-After studying in Germany and knowing the german elites that knew a lot of thing about ritual and tradition, he decided to go back to Italy. Why? because in Italy there wasn't a high level of magical/occultist knowledge (compared to germany) so in Italy he could be a Master, while in Germany he was one among many.
-in his later age he surrounded himself with a circle of neofascist devotees. he had this double thinking: his works were written for two audiences, the elite (very few enlightened wisemen) and the mass of soldiers, composed by brutes and actual killers.
his main teaching are those of obedience and gerarchy, so I don't really like him.
He was surely an interesting figure but he was also an attention whore who needed to be seen as a superior man. I'm not buying his shit
>>802462
This.
In the doctrine of awakening he explicitly said that he used Buddhism just as a template to explain his idea of ascesis. He was an elitist, understandable, he doesn't mean to throw pearls before swine.
>>809153
>He was surely an interesting figure but he was also an attention whore who needed to be seen as a superior man.
Evola was most of his life wheelchair-bound.
His "superior man" was not connected to some race, physical fitness or something you would commonly associate with "superiority"
>>809189
what I meant is that he needed to be seen as a person of superior knowledge, a "seer", a master.
I am talking about intellectual superiority and charisma not about physical fitness my friend
>>805679
>actually thinking being comfortable and proud of your body is "degenerate"
>>805899
But he did anon, there is a section on Heidegger in Ride the Tiger. But you don't know that, because you never read him, and probably never read Heidegger either.
