Talk:Julius Evola

WTF. This entire page was completely gutted.

It had so much valuable information about Evola as an esoteric, masculine, aristocrat, who was anti-fascist, and anti-racism. Especially Neo-Nazi biological racism. This is a disgrace to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerVitamin (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Anti-racist? You have a real uphill battle to prove that. And disagreeing with fascists on some points hardly qualifies as anti-fascist. BS6 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no

I think this article is POV, because the biographic section often downplays the closeness to racist theories, Nazi occultism and fascism. I've got very few materials about Evola and only the idea to touch just with my fingertips a book of his makes me sick.--Olbia merda (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many of the points of view found on the page lean on Evola's own writings (primary sources) and sympathetic commentaries of them. (See, for example, #Evola_and_the_SS [1].) Given the way Evola's writings have been channeled as an intellectual premise for neo-fascism and my inability to fix these issues across this very lengthy page, I'm going to place a POV template on the page. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a terrible article full of opinions and disillusioned facts, very much like the mainstream media today. First the article denies the Nordic race, when there is a Nordic race, then it denies the overall European race by implying all European are racially mixed, this is in fact insulting. What's the agenda here folks? Yes Evola was Euro-centric but what is wrong with that? Afro-centric and judeo-centric authors get put on a high pedestal for loving their heritage and expressing deep knowledge and care for it.

Well done to whoever composed this: "Not only did Evola make a point of identifying Karl Marx, one of the architects of the modern world of materialism, inferiority, pretended equality, and cultural decay, as a Jew--" So by saying it how it is, ei; Karl Marx was jewish, this is used against him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.24.223 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My attempt at Enriching Article; Furlong omission inexplicable

Okay, I just added a lengthy addition to the article, trying to emphasize how Evola is only recently being read in integral "good faith" by Western serious academics, most relevantly, the English-speaking world is just beginning to dive into Evola; and "the only consensus (re: Evola) is there is no consensus", which is the authentic truth.

I am totally shocked Paul Furlong's dissertation (published YEARS ago) is not even hinted at on Evola's official Wikipedia page. This is gross negligence. Furlong's academic library work is hostile to Evola, but is important highly because 1) it is the first full-length English-language book study of Evola, and only Evola and his ideas, to exist and 2) instead of dualistic bipolar tendencies in either direction, the author makes an at least seemingly sincere attempt to intellectually engage the subject, not disguising his antipathy but TREATING THE SUBJECT *SCIENTIFICALLY* (i.e. no agenda-ridden petty personal junk, no ethnic-supremacist junk from the Aryan side, or the Jewish, or any other, -- that is the goal of objective critical analysis, ideally, at least...

Maybe my words and sentences can be aesthetically "prettied up" or simplified, whatever, but for God's sake, Wikipedia, don't just MINDLESSLY delete what I just spent practically an hour of my time in SINCERELY composing, and which is more than workable within the article... Paul Furlong's study not being mentioned is absolutely heinous, Wikipedians, I'm sorry, this is real low there...

So: even if you are a Jewish socialist or whatever, great!, I personally don't care, just don't unethically suppress relevant data I have gathered and roughly phrased about a subject in the process of becoming more "mainstream", inevitably, due to the new translations in English...

Thank you. I'm sure to come back to this page with all my words nicely silenced without a peep, on the Talk Page here, probably a torrent of socialism and Judaism extremist hate, but that is not where I am coming from motivationally. My personal political opinions are irrelevant and I reject Nazi-Fascist barbarity against Jews as strongly as I reject Jewish-Zionist barbarity against [insert political enemy here]--I reject all barbarism is the main thing, of any group against any other group, and I am interested in Evola for reasons otherwise than "white power skinheads" and such types, who I know Evola would despise himself, too, as an aside... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hello IP 75... The frustration you express about deletion of content that has been composed in good faith is common to many new or newish contributors who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and their implementation. Policies at the core of Wikipedia's encyclopedic role include neutral point of view (NPOV tutorial) and reliable sourcing of all new content, which must be verifiable (no "original research"), mainly through judicious selection of secondary sources. There are also many style guidelines, including ones regarding the lead section.
  Please note that if your work is removed, it isn't actually "deleted": you can retrieve it from the revision History (e.g. [2]). When this does happen (and it happens to all of us!), rather than reverting (or certainly edit warring; see the three-revert rule) it is generally advisable to take the matter to the talk page where, if you wish you can paste the removed content which can then be discussed in order to reach consensus. In the absence of any talk page feedback after several days, you may boldly opt to reinsert the content to spark discussion.

The content you added was:

Evola's ultimate legacy in terms of "cultural criticism" and status as philosopher and figure of "reactionary rebellion" remain controversially disputed and assessed with dramatically varying extremes, such extremes existing even among the most apolitical, "objective-minded" scholastic specialists. As the Anglophone world gradually absorbs the content of Evola's thought, whose works are only presently being translated into English in a serious way, the contentiousness surrounding how to frame and interpret Evola responsibly and come to terms with such a figure, is already incendiary and predictably as intense and wildly variable in ultimate judgment and appraisal of his significance as European academe. The static factor is Evola's controversial, to some, "dangerous", nature, especially as an erudite intellectual and philosopher who seems to skirt close to rationalizing barbarism in some of his statements: Evola as provoker, at least, every party assents to expectedly. The Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia is only finally now beginning to rigorously wrap its mind around Evola while a growing handful of British and American universities offer courses specifically dedicated to the problematic analysis of the little-known Sicilian archetypal contrarian. The intelligentsia of the Anglophone West has recently been offered the first, truly respectable and book-length study of Evola in the form of a heavily dense, academic library work on the part of Cardiff University professor Paul Furlong, significantly published by the mainstream and respected Routledge, a fact important in "legitimating" Evola as suitable candidate of further scholarship in a socially hostile atmosphere reluctant to allow Evola ever even existed ("Introduction to the Social and Political Thought of Julius Evola", Paul Furlong, London: Routledge, 2011). In Furlong's study, Evolian ideology is disfavored but Furlong states, in so many words, the time has come to face Evola for the English-speaking intelligentsia (and the extended segments of society). The depth of Evola's thinking is acknowledged as the factual given case of the matter, not something one even has to argue, for Furlong; critical dissection is abundant, devoid of the Manichean demonization of Evola formerly so predominant. Furlong is at the spearhead of the slowly coalescing formation of scholars and students within the Anglo-Saxon intellectual strata who admit Evola is intellectually of integrity, cannot be avoided, and is best dealt with by "defusing" his potentially explosive radical appeal through scientifically rigorous, polemical-critical dissection of pure disinterested philosophical critique. The days when Evola could be dismissed jeeringly as a "fringe madman" are clearly ending. Thus the tone has been set for the encounter of Anglo-Saxondom and Evola: the challenge to modern and postmodern presuppositions undergirding contemporary existence posed by Evolian ideology is now accepted as, pessimistically, at the very least, worthy of analysis and critique at the highest educational levels. Anglo-Saxon academe generates quality material relating to Evola with increasing, but very careful and gradual, tempo.

Julius Evola as a nebulous obscurantist bereft of intelligence with half-baked crazy ideas, whose only significance exists in clear-cut dualistic terms, either as an anti-Semitic monster, or wild-eyed megalomaniac inciter of neo-fascist mass terrorism, Western scholars have slowly cumulatively conceded is a picture unfaithful to the complexity of the case. Even relatively early on in the Western academic struggle of interpretation of Evola, among less political and more non-partisan scholars, the "cultural-intellectual" legacy of Evola was portrayed in minimalistic terms nevertheless crediting the Sicilian "aristocratic anarchist" as intellectually distinctive and intellectually worthy. Thomas Sheehan perhaps summarized the most "neutral", detached, bare-minimum estimation of Evola on the part of academician specialists and other observers of all predispositions in stating, even if gravely flawed and wrongheaded, Julius Evola still constituted a force to be reckoned with and not mendaciously suppressed or ignored: Evola, in the scholar's words, was:

"...the most original, creative--and certainly, intellectually the most nonconformist--of the Italian fascist philosophers" (Sheehan 1981, 76).

Beyond such a minimalistic ellipsis, contentiousness arises, and no dispassionate, broad statements can be posited except at cost of extreme, heated intellectual battle -- the only certainty being Evola shall continue to provoke probably every sector of modern humankind in different ways in his all-encompassing, intransigent aggression against, essentially, everything modern people understand as constituent parts of "normal existence."

86.161.251.139 (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for at least outwardly being civil and polite to my Wikipedia-fresh self.

In any case, what I contributed and you seemingly nicely re-posted here, hardly took away from the total mess the article is as we speak. Any objective Wikipedian with no political background of fanaticism, please try to incorporate at least some of what I added above. Truly, not mentioning Paul Furlong's study is abominable.

I personally might not have the patience to spend significant time with Wikipedia, but there must be SOMEWHERE a handful of disinterested Wikipedians who can "acceptably" incorporate some of the stuff I composed at length above.

And as an aside: I am an unusually independent-minded American Jew but honestly, reading the "top contributors list" to Wikipedia was like reading, uh, how do I say this with genteel polish when the matter is so sordid?...the top contributors list was like reading an enrollment document of a Zionist cyber-army of the IDF. Wikipedia has objectivity issues I cannot personally deal with, frankly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

HYPOTHETICALLY: Say, when I have the leisure, I wanted to sincerely deal with what I perceive to be the massive distortion of scholarship Wikipedia enables and wanted to figure out a way to "depoliticize" Wikipedia, so equity may reign and more people respect the online encyclopedia?

Where would I begin? This goes beyond Evola, patently.

Are there "web-courts" where I could present my viewpoint and a non-corrupt "web-judge" would be able to enforce anything like a "depoliticized" government here? Reiterating: This goes FAR BEYOND the nonconformist Evola. Overt and covert political fanaticism is everywhere here, and has no role in scholarship -- at least in the Enlightenment understanding of scientific, disinterested scholarship. Am I the only one desiring such quality?

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did actually take time to craft my last comment for you. On Wikipedia, reaching consensus (rather than "courts") is the preferred tool for achieving a neutral point of view.
86.161.251.139 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear newly-created and civilly restrained impeccably, Wiki-buddy:

How in the world can there be consensus about Julius Evola when the world's most high-ranking university scholars, when even equally apolitical, assess Evola, and the intellectual worth of his output, in DRAMATICALLY different ways?

P.S. Perhaps one creative way to ensure objectivity within the Evola article is to exclude every single group or nationality Evola has words for, either against or for -- how can we possibly obtain objective quality when it seemingly appears two antipodal sets of contributors add to the article, 1) radical, dogmatic Evolians/Evolans who glamorize and heroize the figure, and 2) equally radical and fanatic ANTI-Evolians of overwhelmingly Jewish background understandably emotional concerning Julius Evola.

But Evola has offended every set of human beings, in one way or another - how do we make the article higher in content even theoretically when bogged down by these all-too-human issues preempting beginning the process of textual refinement?

I am Jewish, a little Italo-German thrown in, and I know my con-ethnic body depressingly well... While Evola stated DIRECTLY a Jewish genome is capable of existing ontologically and metaphysically as "Aryan/Indo-European" if inner reorientation occurs, thus precluding the National Socialist irrational argumentation given to legitimize the wholesale massacre of Jews, -- I know my fellow Jews would not even comprehend if Evola would have been in charge, this undetected "small charitableness" of Evola's atypical erudition, logically equalled the salvaging of Jewry as an intact, unbroken mass, indirectly touching the Zionist dilemma...

My fellow Jews WILL NOT treat Evola with any detached scholastic distance, primal emotive reaction overwhelming any possible intelligent, accurate reading...

Why do I keep talking about "Jews"? Well, Evola stated erratically some very hard-hitting observations, the criticized mind does not know how to cope with or negotiate, except in neurotic processes driven by "hurt"...

Secondly, I shall not be Ostrich-like and serve the idol of Leninist-Trotskyist "political correctness"! WIKIPEDIA IS TOTALLY OVERBRIMMING NEXT TO SPILLING OVER, IN TERMS OF JEWISH PARTICIPATION. The number, the commitment, the powerfulness, the influence, the degree of magnitude as measured by any thinkable metric, -- the reality is Jews, in particular the sub-set of Jews self-identifying as (Revisionist Maximalist?) Zionist, exist as a basic empirically-verifiable, inter-group Gumplowiczian social anthropological data incapable of ignoring, especially in relation to somehow magically producing an excellent, meritorious text about a controversial, contrarian, consciously, and philosophically as unfashionable as conceivable. The question is, How is one to deal with, intellectually, responsibly, in a spirit of analytical honesty and upright critique, the lone wolf Evola, when Evola the man and thinker posited ontological ANTI-JUDAISM as one of the main axes of philosophical insurrection asserted by the metapolitical personality? and when said anti-Judaism is purported by the author to derive not from base motivation but deeper criteria of the principial order? Evolian anti-Judaism is claimed to logically flow from the weird philosopher's core onto-metaphysical schemata of judgment, and at least as seen from the surface appearance, in the context of Evola absorbing the implicitly Hellenistic-Catholic, Western Idealist stream of thought, internalizing the Conservative Revolutionary perceptual lens viewing Jews and Judaism from the Nietzschean, "anarchic aristocratic" polemical, agonistic background of contestation of Judeo-Christianity, etc., and in light of Evola's profound delving into the Neoplatonist-Idealist, neo-Kantian spiritualistic anti-Semite Otto Weininger, the most violently self-hating Jew in history perhaps, and impossible of minimizing as a clueless fool without the slightest spark of intelligence - as said, factoring in the varied personal ideological formation of Evola, in which formation several LEGITIMATE, non-anti-Semitic yet Judaically-critical cultural/philosophic personages, without irrationality, uttered heavy-duty anti-Jewish words of different intensity, not susceptible of convenient "explaining away" in civility of untruth: thinking upon these things, the maneuver of automatically electing the dismissal and denigration of Evola, to all appearances, incorporating the full picture, - blackening dismissal and disvaluation of Evola solely due to his idiosyncratic so-called "anti-Semitism" (no comment about this terminological propagandistic schizophrenia, HA) would seem genuinely and seriously EXCESSIVE and merely a reflex of all-too-human Gumplowiczian inter-group competition, morally self-interested and a power-play of ethnocentric vainglory, merely...

Evola, reiterating, held a perspectival angle, imagining or pretending Evola then held vastly wider executive, enforceable mastership legally, - Evola the thinker, in an alternative history, would have NEGATED THE COMMISSION OF THE HOLOCAUST AND ALREADY NEGATED THE UNDERLYING, FLAWED, UNETHICAL "REASONING" the Nazi clodhopping berserker tyranny itself provided as pseudo-intellectual alibi for its Titanic criminality of deed...

Evola is extremely similar to many other European culturati/literati in his anti-Jewish lines of thought... I shan't compile a referenced list unless desired... The anti-Judaism, or, if I concede using hopelessly ambiguous, Orwellian, psychological control tactical rhetoric to erect thoughtblock, - if it comforts others, the "anti-Semitism" of Evola diverges in no way from the rivulet of conceptualization hallowed in time by the aristocratic, high reactionary intelligentsia and its understanding is chronologically traceable to the point of elemental archaic primordiality; off the top of my head, we could start, symbolically, with "The Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", etc. Vociferous, shrill, violent, impassioned, melodramatic, condemnatory accusations connoting grimmest moral absolutism and incriminating Evola as personally genocidally guilty, IF REAL AND COURT-OF-LAW SUBSTANTIVE, (I do empathetically extend my sympathy to any soul or souls knowing other souls adversely impacted by the "Holocaust" and/or other massacres of flagitious deviltry), if real, the claims still REQUIRE METHODIC, METICULOUS AND IN-DEPTH SUBSTANTIATION & CORROBORATION...

The following is an example of "anecdotal evidence", interpretation-heavy and a weaker forensic test; yet I offer this testimony in any case. If the reported exchange is found in another source (superior confirmatory value) or memory (valuable as interpretable), the actuality of affairs unveils itself. My story: An indubitably trustworthy relative of mine, unimpeachably honest, whose honesty if questioned would unsheathe dagger-blade owing to reverencing of the feudalistic-chivalric honor code concept, making the trust-principle or truth-principle a matter of life and death (feudal knighthood got some things right! Today, truth is eviscerated in the heartless spiritless cowardice of decadent, de-masculinized half-men, spewing out hateful vulgarian grossness so wildly, and legally barred is redressal by the pale magistracy of all Western "governments" universally enfeebled as terminally fatally corrupt pluto-pornocracies, slime-encrusted in misconduct, Mafia-conquered usurpation our present Western world caste jurisprudence wholly subversively committed to malfeasant inversion of all POLITIA RECTA rooted in the LEX NATURALIS), latterly since deceased, personally reported to me (I do have a minority Italian-German genetic component, thus making possible interpersonal, inter-relational autobiographical experience, even if mathematically Hebrew-Jewish-Semitic, the malefic "Other", if viewed in hardcore National Socialist, or later, R.S.I. Salo Fascist, eyes, the so-called "Hither-Asiatic" disproportionately predominant, the Italic-Germanic part notwithstanding undeniable: thus an outcasted reject tainted being to ALL, O joy of joys), this relative received direct oral admission on the part of Evola regarding the unacceptable, regressive and barbarous treatment of Jews under Nazi tyranny... I was informed Evola specifically, in a tone of somber sincerity, condemned as unworthy and hatefully detestable, irrationally dishonorable, what Evola termed the "massacre/s" suffered by Jewry. Notable here is Evola avoids the technical terminology and consensual vocabulary surrounding the anti-Jewish excesses. "Holocaust", etc., other martyrology-like words, Evola either refused to use as descriptors, or simply did not know existed, for the horror perpetrated.

What Evola knew experientially individually was serious, grave injustice was inflicted upon Jewish folk. Evola is usually morally anti-bourgeois to the maximum, therefore learning Evola had the ethical balance and empathetic moral perspective to not mince words and whole-heartedly condemn in harshest manner the "massacre/s" enacted by Nazi extremism, I believe, affords some evidentiary value about Evola's perhaps lesser known inner side, characterologically...

ANYHOW, RETURNING: So where does a person even begin here? Is Wikipedia redeemable beyond the quagmire of ethnic identity petty politics? I challenge the Jewish population of Wikipedia to outdistance itself and exhibit magnanimity of thought. I challenge ALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism of Evola

I am not jewish. But I for one will not to withdraw the label of an anti-semite from Evola. He suported the Racial laws in Italy of 1938. Nuf said. I don't need to blame him for the holocaust, but I would make it clear that, in simple terms, Evola hated Jews as a people, if not jews as individuals. Rococo1700 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not deny this -- Evola was scientifically anti-Semitic. Well-educated and a fellow-traveler among Scholem, Corbin, Guenon, etc. however -- he knew of Jewish esoteric currents he positively valued. Also a hardcore white supremacist,whatever the term. But not your average clown. He hated Jews of RECENT history due to their involvement in modernization and liberalism, IN HIS ANALYSIS; and had several Jewish friends, BTW. He has the same stance re: Freemasonry: If individually worthy, collectively condemned. I neither approve nor disapprove his thoughts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

POV

- "Evola helped draft racial legislation in Mussolini's Italy"

- "Noted for his own anti-Semitic writings, Evola published a preface for an Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery"

Is this stuff really relevant enough to be in the introduction paragraph? 64.134.42.53 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

These facts are notable, but not such an integral part of Julius Evola's identity that they belong in the opening paragraph. Evola was definitely a racist, but putting this at the front of the article like a big red disclaimer seems biased, so I reverted the changes. 67.168.153.164 (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I object to the characterization of this language as "POV". Evola was and remains a philosopher of racism. Racism is intrinsic to his ideas. I suggest you read "The Aryan-ness of the Doctrine of Awakening" before you suggest that people are being "biased" by characterizing Evola in his own words. Just because a characterization is shocking, does not make it biased. Evola was a racist, proudly. Let him be viewed that way unless there is some evidence that this creates unclear language. Evola himself was not unclear about his racism. Dlawbailey (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Section titles

The heading "1.4 Evola and the SS" under "Biography" makes it seem like Evola was actually involved in the SS, but instead it just details his views on it. Perhaps this was an intentional POV emphasis? Perhaps his views about the SS could be in the same section as fascism (as SS is fascist) or later in the Politics section. --Pudeo' 20:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Evola was both: clandestinely a scholastic employee of a Waffen SS counter-espionage division I shall not name and a believer in "SS ideology" maximally - he was no fluffy kitten, know well. How the article is organizationally rendered is a matter of style and tiresome editing; people should know here Evola specifically toned down his anti-Nazi stance in his analysis of the SS, even with SS "meat-physics" of Nordic mania assigning lesser rank to all but the most putatively pure-bred Nordic "Aryan whites" of Scandinavian physio-type, - Evola nevertheless in his own delusive mania viewed the SS (especially in its trans-national, pan-Western form as the WAFFEN-SS) as a potential germ of a future, higher "rajasic/Kshatriya" Templarian-style international order to defend "Aryan Europe"... The documents evidencing his employment by Nazi-SS bureaucracy are there, but government-sealed, yet here is reality: Evola officially worked for the Waffen SS intelligence SECRETLY (espionage is as espionage is, I guess: how can a secret not be a secret?) as an investigator and analyst of Freemasonry and other controversial, related and "occult" subjects. The English translated works gloss over his involvement with Himmler and others, truth be told (Himmler held a CRITICAL yet STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE attitude in relation to Evola, not a NEGATIVE disposition as alleged by the pop translators of Evola in the Anglophone world who cite in isolation one ephemeral memo: publisher "Inner Traditions"=bowdlerizers) and Evola's advisements were not taken as a joke... The "Brigate Nere", last-ditch terroristic guerrillas half-Nazi, half-Fascist working for Salo, took ideological instruction DIRECTLY from his writings in the last days of the war, Mussolini and Hitler stamped and approved it all, and who knows how many eccentrically harmless Masons were butchered in all this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Neofascism

This information was deleted "inspirer and ideologist of neofascism" I want to note, that Stanley G. Payne and Nicholas Goodrick-Clark are very reliable sources Cathry (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Even the article states he is anti-fascist and that article is biased. I'm not sure what weird agenda you're trying to push here but you can't keep putting this false information here. 95pack (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The article, as it stood before, clearly stated that there were conflicting opinions on whether Evola was a fascist or not - the fact that he stood politically to the right of the fascists in Italy doesn't mean that any reference to him being a fascist should be eliminated. Rather, it should be made clear that although Evola himself did not align himself with the fascists in power in Italy at the time, his ideology was certainly not far from a fascist ideology - if anything, some of the sources cited describe him as being even more fascist than Mussolini. His own self-description is noted, as it should be, but it does not automatically override opinions of him written by reliable sources, and render those sources as inaccurate. All of that relevant info should stay on the page. Rockypedia (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Payne is respected for sure opinions on Goodrick-Clark are more split. A. James Gregor has argued forcibily against seeing Evola's work as neofascist as he argues (conviningly in my opinion) that the term is too loosely applied. Not every far right or authoritarian thinker or regime is neofascist or fascist. That is something Payne himself argues at length, grabbing on sentence out of a huge book to argue otherwise seems unwise. BS6 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

POV and accuracy problem

Some editors feel the need to repeatedly vandalize this page and label Evola as a "neofascist," even feeling the need to put this in the introduction. Every time I try to fix this error my edits are reverted. Aside from the fact that Evola was anti-fascist, "neofascism" did not even exist as an ideology when he did his work. I think this problem needs to be fixed and I'm not sure how since there are aparently people who feel very strongly about defacing this article. 95pack (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bandaieditor and 95pack: Calling something vandalism when it's not vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism), not using any edit summary, just saying "POV", etc. typically are not effective if you're removing well-sourced content. That said, I've attempted another version rather than this back and forth reverting business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to break down my edit: The first sentence of the article was "[Evola] was an Italian philosopher, painter, and esotericist, inspirer and ideologist of neofascism." It cited sources by Payne and Goodrick-Clark. In addition to the grammatically problematic double "and" and extra space, "inspirer" is awkward and saying he's an "ideologist of neofascism" sounds like we're saying he held neofascist ideologies rather than holding some beliefs compatible with fascism or that he was influential with neo/fascists. However, reverting it removes all mention of his influence, as well as those two sources, from the lead. Since the third paragraph of the lead was already dedicated to talking about his relationship with fascism, but didn't talk about his influence on neo/fascists, I moved that part along with the sources there and did a little copyediting (which I'll note the section on fascism also needs). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think, "influential on" is not proper characteristics because he had close relations with neofascists (and fascists) Cathry (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

To claim Evola was 'anti-fascist' is clearly special pleading. A. James Gregor does agree it is innaccurate to refer to him as neo-fascist though. See The Search for Neo Fascism which has an entire chapter on Evola. BS6 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobiliary Status

This issue re: Evola, the "Baron", is so complex, as to seem unresolvable. In Sicilian context, nobility is understood not "lazily" but "informally" in one way of putting things, and "Baron" is given spontaneously as honorific title to ANY person exhibiting a "respectable" personality ("respectable" in the semi-feudal, Sicilian context, again!)...

So: what do the POSITIVISM-VERIFIABLE data and files, documents, actually show, is the question... Have any "Evolian/Evolan" scholars or academicians relevant, confirmed or disconfirmed things here...? E.g. Hansen (nonpartisan) and others, I imagine, have written about this and interrelated subjects, in materials and essays, simply not available in English...

I have one source, who I have no reason to regard in ANY direction in terms of "biases", claiming, plausibly, quite plausibly, strongly stating the following: an independent investigation into the Cinisi, Palermo-centered ACTUAL local governmental Social-Security-type info pertaining to Evola and his family, reveals not much helpful, except (seemingly!), contrary to what others have on Wikipedia asserted, Evola stems, MATRILINEALLY (and whose patrilineal identity is even more obscure) NOT from the medieval illustrious FRANGIPANE but my source tells me, the written name of his mother, is given as MANGIAPANE - IF that even makes any difference...as Mangiapane and Frangipane, in the distinctively confusing Sicilian context, could be merely semantically different names, not "genealogically"...

Evola, as a social theoretician advocating rigorous neo-Platonic hierarchicalism graded according to "spirit", as a "meritocratic aretologist of caste idealism", of course, would consider the topic, on its surface, idiotic, not even worth discussing. It is idiotic, if viewed by idiotic eyes.

YET, even these little facts are important on a limited plane of reality...especially considering Evola's "philosophic meta-ideology" whose "aristocratic radicalism", in sheer "educated violence", I, personally, as one relatively erudite in this sphere, have not encountered except in the most aggressive words of Nietzsche... Whether or not he was OFFICIALLY "noble", invested as such, OR NOT, etc., etc., is not entirely void of relevance.

So the question is not, Is the title of "Baron" "real"? ...but,

IN WHAT SENSE OR SENSES, complementary or exclusive or whatever, is "BARON EVOLA" "real"...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F1E6:E687:2A15:47FA (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Organization and Revision

Given Julius Evola's position on the political spectrum and the orientation of his philosophical and theological thought towards matters of transcendence, it's perfectly understandable that many have not heard of him and possess no familiarity with his works. I'm no great expert on Julius Evola but anyone that has actually bothered to read his books and and other accounts of his life like those provided by the likes of Dr. H. T. Hansen and Joscelyn Godwin should be informed enough to know that this article is a mess.

I'm aware of the divisive nature of a figure like Julius Evola and the many ways of approaching and interpreting his thought; Julius Evola provokes a wide range of reactions in readers and as such its hard to know what information is important and what facts of his life should receive priority. I for my part am fairly biased in favor of Julius Evola and his world view, and I'm sure many of you are quite biased against his world view. I'm certain we shall have no shortage of arguments over what Evola really meant and so on and so forth. This is to be expected.

What I did not expect however, is outright incorrect information (dates for when books were written), missing or ignored information (Krur group), and an unfocused and unchecked attempt at exposition. Regardless of predilection it is Wikipedia's directive to provide easily accessible and unbiased information. Death and concentration camps are no fun to write and learn about either, and if you guys can have an unbiased holocaust denial page, we can certainly have an unbiased Julius Evola one.

I just joined specifically for this and have no real knowledge about how to effectively use Wikipedia. My intention is to notate on this page issues with the actual article, either correcting false information, or merely pointing out ambiguous information. If I've committed some faux pas please excuse me. I shall simply go through the article paragraph by paragraph, or line by line if I must- striving to keep my arguments on an objective and factual level.

---

Starting with the second paragraph, what is the reason for pointing out the Kali Yuga specifically? "The Truth goes by many names, but is of one form." It would be just as accurate to speak of the Baron's views on Hesiod's Iron Age or the biblical end of days. I bring this up because in The Revolt Against the Modern World, when Evola is expounding The Doctrine of the Four Ages Evola stresses the universal nature of the age of dissolution. The various overarching points of shared myths and culture is important in the development of the argument of a superior eternal realm of Tradition. Evola defines the realm of Tradition in the first chapter of Revolt Against the Modern World, and furthermore develops his idea of a single common ancestor from which all knowledge of Tradition descended in Genesis and Face of the Modern World, which is Part Two of Revolt Against the Modern World. I apologize if I'm going to far in to detail here, I simply wish it to be understood that this is not my interpretation of Evola's ideas, but is directed stated by him. The most minor change I would suggest is simply cutting out "Kali Yuga, a ". This retains Evola's original meaning without introducing unnecessary technical terms.

The second sentence of this paragraph is also sloppily worded. Evola's views on the usefulness of politics changed throughout his life. Evola's early works such as Pagan Imperialism carried the impetus of youth and advocated a counter revolution (see the conclusion of Pagan Imperialism), with the end of the Second World War and the defeat of the Axis forces the Baron's opinions changed into apoliteia- see: The Conclusion to Revolt Against the Modern World, Ride the Tiger, Evola's Autodifesa, and finally the interview published in Arthos in September- December 1972. Evola had quite clearly given up any hope of a rebirth, at least in his lifetime. Secondly, it isn't Evola's world of Tradition, even assuming you don't accept it as Truth Evola formed it in (more or less) conjunction with our other two Tradition buddies: Arturo Reghini and Renee Guenon as Evola states in Revolt Against the Modern World and The Path to Cinnabar.

The fourth sentence in the second paragraph would come off stronger and more confident if you gave the name and credentials of the scholar that is being quoted. This brings me to another point though, why list a reference that is inaccessible? The PDF that is being cited here seems to be locked behind a pay wall. This doesn't do the reader aspiring for the highest degree of clarity and objectivity much good. After a moderate bit of searching I've found an excerpt of the book with the paragraph in which said quote appears: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/4374/5047

The fifth sentence is one of those tricky grey areas in which it becomes difficult to separate fact and opinion. I disagree with the statement for two reasons. 1) Once again I would to make note of the fact that Evola did not develop his theories in a vacuum. Both Reghini and Guenon had very similar theories, matter of fact many people had come to the same conclusion regarding Tradition, Plato being one of the most influential (see the Republic and Critias). When it comes to spiritualism and mysticism, Evola did not create anything, rather he inherited it from a myriad of sources. For example, see the Foreword in Evola's Hermetic Tradition, or the first chapter of Revolt Against the Modern World. Evola simply espoused the doctrines of Tradition. 2) As I stated above, I largely agree with Evola, and I imagine the average reader will most likely disagree with Evola. To keep things objective I suggest we keep the discourse purely centered on what the Baron himself believed. The latter half of the second paragraph could be reconstructed to clearly show what Julius Evola meant by Tradition and how he came upon the concept. The ideas of Tradition and Transcendence are some of the most important and form the foundation and lens for all of Evola's thought. It should receive higher priority than his views regarding the end of the cycle.

The following sentence suffers the problem of ambiguous and potentially misleading terms. I think it must be noted how Evola conceived of these things, that is within the system of Tradition. Not a big deal but one that could certainly be made more clear.

For the second sentence of the third paragraph we could pull citations to back that assertion from either Path to Cinnabar or Fascism viewed from the Right.

For the third sentence of the third paragraph, I would like to know where this debate idea came from. In The Path to Cinnabar specifically The Issue of Race, Evola recounts: "From a historical perspective, it might be interesting to note that Synthesis of the doctrine of Race was openly approved by Mussolini. After reading the book, Mussolini got in touch with me, praising the work beyond its real merit on the grounds that the doctrine it espoused was just what he needed. My racial doctrine Mussolini believed, might allow him to engage with the same issues addressed with Germany, thus 'conforming' to Germany, while at the same time maintaining an independence approach based on a spiritual drive (the primacy of the spirit which German racism generally lacked).

Before we leave the beginning, I would simply like to say that the influences is woefully lacking- it doesn't even list Meister Eckhart. Perhaps at some point I shall actually compile a list, but for now we'll accept it's failure and move on.

---

Early Years:

The citation needed for the second sentence can come from the Path to Cinnabar where Evola states: "I cannot attribute the above-mentioned inclinations present in my to either environmental influences or hereditary factors (in the conventional biological sense of the word): I owe very little to the milieu in which I was born, to the education which I received, and to my own blood." This is stated in Personal Background and Early Experiences. As for the next line, I would like a citation for the quote as he doesn't ever state that in the Path to Cinnabar, rather: "I couldn't stand the idea of being addressed as 'Doctor' or 'Professor'". Now the end of the next sentence where Nietzsche and Weinenger are mentioned, it should also include Michelstaeder. He was pretty important to Evola as seen in Dr. Hansen's Study Introduction. Maybe add Stirner as well. Evola states that he was influenced by Futurism during the first half of the conflict- not after. Also it should be mentioned that Evola never really like futurism and broke with it for Dadaism. Then Evola goes on about his paintings, should that be included? Personally I think his paintings belong in the trash with the rest of the abstract drivel. We definitely should include a picture though, there are a fair few to choose from.

Entry to Esotericism

Furthermore as he chronicles in The Path to Cinnabar, he first went through a philosophical phase, before (in his own view) moving upwards to more Esoteric matters. The first book he published after his artistic phase was important as it helped him to develop his own central ideas. Though he does note that he "contaminated" it by trying to make concessions of a rational sort. It was also in Lao Tzu that Evola first felt the need to distance himself from Idealist Philosophy. He decided that philosophy was inadequate and quoting Lagneau: "Philosophy is the kind of reflection which ultimately recognizes its own insufficiency, and the need for an absolute action arising from within.". Evola then published his main philosophical work The Theory and Phenomenology of the Absolute Individual. Summing up this book is no small task, it has to do with fairly in depth philosophical knowledge, and in order to explain it in a way everyone would understand would require the explanation of several schools of thought- something far and beyond this encyclopedia page. He thought of the book as fixing "what I believed to be the limits of modern thought". I have not actually read this work of his, but from the summary of its ideas in the Path to Cinnabar it must have been quite the read. Personally I think Evola did a fantastic job, but that is also beyond the realm of this current revision. He also published essays on magical idealism during this time (Atanor 1925).

One of the bias' arranged against Evola is alleged stupidity or shallowness of thought due to his associations with Fascism and Racism. This leads many to gloss over his works thinking they can consign him off after reading a couple of excerpts. This is certainly not the case, the breadth and depth of Evola's thought is considerable, this whole section needs to be reworked. It jumps from his entry into Esotericism right into world war two and post world war 2. Evola was quite busy during these times, you miss a lot of information if you ignore them. Also why do all these quotes come from things other than Evola? He wrote an autobiography.

Moving on to the latter half of this section- why is there only one sentence dedicated to the UR group? Furthermore it doesn't even mention the KRUR period and what lead up to it (KRUR would later become La Torre though). One could understand misinformation in his philosophy, and one can equally understand misinformation due to the bias of one party or another, but flatly missing facts is simply shoddy scholarship.

The next section, relationship with Fascism also needs to be reworked. I don't know who wrote this, but they did a poor job. Once again we have an off hand quote instead of pulling one from Evola, he spoke at length about Fascism and his feelings towards it in multiple works- even going so far to write a book on the subject. Evola did not believe in a variation of Fascist racism, if anything Italian fascism believed in Evolian racism. Apologies for putting on my tin foil hat, but this whole section is written with a fucking slant- "like minded radical fascists", two paragraphs later you insist he was not a fascist. Why do you go to outside sources when the man himself gives you everything you need, he wrote and autobiography and a book on Fascism. Also, I don't think this belongs here, if we are giving a biography and overview of his life this can wait until later. Don't bring your agenda to Wikipedia.

La Torre emerged from the KRUR group, which in turn emerged from the UR group. The source for this comes from two places, one being Evola's autobiography (path to Cinnabar), and the other being from my copy of Introduction to Magic as a Science of the I. However there is a slight discrepancy that should be resolved. In Path to Cinnabar, so far as I can see, Evola makes no mention of the UR group. Not very surprising given its small runtime, but the other thing is that it agrees with the article in saying that it was a bi-weekly publication (Evola says it "was issued once a fortnight" but my copy of Introduction to Magic states in the preface that it was originally monthly, then changed to bi-monthly. Typically I would side with Evola's own autobiography, but this specifically focuses on the publications of the UR group. I know there is a record somewhere of the actual articles and their dates, I'll go look for it at some point but for now I'm simply noting it and moving on.

On the subject of what La Torre published, the article states it was "his conservative- revolutionary ideas". I'm not sure how to count this one given that I have not read the articles themselves. He mentions in Path to Cinnabar that it went over, or was the culmination of, his Traditional ideas put into political action. If somebody who has actually read them would confirm we could be more certain.

In Path to Cinnabar Evola states that the main backlash to the publication resulted after an article by the name of "The Bow and the Club". Quoting: "This rubric consisted of a newspaper review: an attack on the worst features of the contemporary press which spared no criticism whatsoever (just to provide an example, when a reader remarked that some of our views did not quite agree with those of Mussolini, we replied: 'All the worse for Mussolini'). It might be remarked that La Torre represented something quite unique and unprecedented in Fascist Italy." Evola says that soon, however, they were made the object of more violent and brutal reactions particularly because his "club" was striking at "real gangsters", men who were "a truly pathetic spectacle". Evola states that when they found they could not address him on an intellectual scale, they resorted to more direct means. Lawsuits and physical violence. Evola, never one to be deterred simply took to walking the streets with bodyguards "(other Fascists sympathetic to my cause)". Maybe you had a point about the radical Fascist thing. Regardless, they moved up the chain of command but to no avail. Evola states that they could not simply suppress it because it was not anti-fascist. This strikes me as odd, because I don't see why that would stop them, and it was indeed anti-fascist. The police informally contaced him and told him to stop- which he wouldn't- and thus decided to simply tell all the publishers in Rome not to print it. Only in print for five months, Evola "was sick of the whole thing, and went off to the mountains.". He did come back though and found a "holy patron" in Roberto Farinacci and another man by the name of Giovanni Preziosi. With these two most Italian sounding names I've ever heard, Evola continued publishing his work in another magazine called Vita Italiana. It should be mentioned that these two were protected by means of a library full of scandalous material (rumored) and the other by his closeness to Mussolini. Evola however, after learning of his mistakes in publishing La Torre, that is, that its best not to directly attack the worst members of the violent fascist government, "purged (his works in Vita Italiana) it of its more inflammatory ad hominem polemics" and thus found a safe haven in which to publish his ideas about tradition. He started writing for them in 1932 and continued throughout the war.

Moving on to the next paragraph, I've already covered a fair bit of this. One thing I will comment on, is the remark about Evola collaborating with leading Nazi race theorists. I call bullshit unless you can back that up.I tried to check the source but couldn't find it. In Path to Cinnabar Evola does not mention this. What he does mention several times is the failure of such Germans. Evola's ideas on race have very little at all to do with the German biologicalism of the era. I don't mean to defend Evola from being called a racist, on the contrary, I agree with Evola and would not see his views tarnished by the slaves of the Nazi demagogue. He was indeed in Germany, though this was not his first time, and he did speak on racism- but only to try and convert the Germans. I don't think Hitler would allow any of his leading Nazi race theorists to be influenced by some one who held the nordic race to be spiritually degenerated. In Notes On the Third Reich, Evola takes the Nazis to task over the racism of their party. In path to Cinnabar he speaks at length about his ideas on race. To Clarify: (I'll quote Dr. Hansen first then Evola)

"Evola dealt with the question of race in much detail and in countless newspaper and magazine articles. He also at least touches upon this theme in most of his books, and four are devoted to it exclusively. This wealth can certainly be ascribed partly to the fact that there was no other field in which he received so much attention, both positive and negative. Mussolini's reaction and his proposal to make Evola's racial theories the official "Fascist" doctrine has already been mentioned. If one could ever credit Evola with an "official" character and the resulting influence, it would be here. However, this was the case only after 1938, when under German pressure Italy passed its own racial laws and Mussolini was looking for his own way that would be different from the National Socialist racial views. But recognition alone was not the motivation. Evola was genuinely interested in the question itself, and had long studied it. He always regretted that people saw him only as the "racist" and did not realize that his position regarding race was a consequence of his entire worldview. He always saw racial themes as one area among many, which had its importance but was hierarchically below the all-important primal principles. In later Fascism and in National Socialism this question dominated everything and, in addition, had been approached from the wrong angle, as Evola saw it. In Grundrisse der faschistischen Rassenlehre (p. 8), he writes as follows: "Up until now, mainly the propagandistic and polemical aspect of race has been emphasized, in respect to the antiJewish struggle and other practical and preventive tasks aimed against the mixing of white Italians with races of other colors. But Italy has lacked any preparations concerning the positive, truly educative, and finally the spiritual side of racial thought." Since we already know that Evola views any and all questions in their relation to transcendence (which he calls "spirit" in man, as opposed to "soul"), it comes as no surprise to learn that when it comes to race, he places the emphasis on the spiritual factor. (...) Thus the purely biological element is not enough for Evola. This is especially clear in the following quotation (ibid., p. 41): "In a cat or a thoroughbred horse the biological is the deciding element, and thus the racial observation can be restricted to this criterion. This, however, is no longer the case when dealing with humans, or at least with beings that are worthy of that name. Man is indeed a biological being, but also connected to forces and laws of a different kind, that are as real and effective as the biological realm and whose influence on the latter cannot be overlooked. Fascist racial doctrine therefore holds a purely biological view of race to be inadequate." (...) The same article later contains one of Evola's strongest attacks against so-called "scientific" racism, which hurt him very much in official circles. One cannot forget that in 1942, because of the war, the racial campaign was seen as very important. He says: "Those who are striving for a `purely scientific racism' today want to ingratiate themselves with `the people.' Instead of contributing to the elimination of a leftover myth that is present in the lesser educated strata of society, they believe they can use it as a sure basis, to `make an impression,' to give authority to half-baked ideas and a dilettante racism, which wants to be as untouchable in its surface assumptions as it is incoherent and contradictory upon closer inspection." As the above shows, Evola fought vehemently against a purely physical racism because of its superficiality, and he ranted several times against skull measuring and similar practices. Because of his emphasis on the spiritual, his rejection of what Trotsky called "zoological materialism" was only natural. In addition, Evola traced the origin of "racial thought" in his sense back to aristocratic custom, in which the physical counted for nothing: the deciding factor was membership in the same stratum. Thus, the royal dynasties only in the rarest cases originated in the people that they ruled over. And the fact that ruling dynasties always marry across their frontiers (for example, the Hapsburgs even had Mongolian ancestors) also testifies to this same attitude. (Concerning this, see "Sull'essenza e la funzione attuale dello spirito aristocratico" [On the Essence and the Present Function of the Aristocratic Spirit], in Lo Stato, XII, 10). This "spiritual racism" is also evident in Evola's saying (which was vehemently opposed by nationalist circles) that the "common ideas are the father-land" and not the region in which one was born, because "all peoples of today are racial mixtures, and in general elements other than the racial count as the foundation of their unity." (...) Later, in 1952, when Evola was standing trial, he stated in his famous SelfDefense: "It must be realized that in modern racial studies, `Aryan' and even `Nordic' do not in fact mean `German'; the term is synonymous with `IndoEuropean,' and is correctly applied to a primordial, prehistoric race, from which were derived the first creators of the Indian, Persian, Greek, and Roman civilizations, and of which the Germans are only the final adventitious branches."

TL;DR: The Inner and spiritual race is superior to the physical and biological one. That was lengthy but worth it, I hope. Once again I would like to suggest of all the things that you can choose to think about Julius Evola, don't go on thinking that his views were simple.

Though in the interest of unbiased scholarship, Evola does say in notes on the Third Reich (in the context of Nazi Racism and how it was insufficient): "Nonetheless, the fact remains that, even from the point of view of the Right, a certain balanced consciousness and dignity of 'race' can be considered as salutary, if we think where we have ended up in our days with the exaltation of the Negro and all the rest, the psychosis of anti-colonialism (Note: Evola considered colonialism degenerate, preferring instead the Traditional idea of the Empire), and intergrationist fanaticism". One could see how this would be a problem for the modern "man". Personally I think the blacks belong right next to Evola's abstract paintings in the garbage- but racism is a great way to derail things, so moving right on along.

Something should also be said of Evola's relationship with Mussolini. Its fascinating.

As for the needed citation about Evola staying in Germany, I can't find any decisive information. I do believe he was in Germany given the Path to Cinnabar, and Dr. Hansen's confirmation. However his intentions there were, to quote Dr. Hansen, unknown. I find it quite likely, but again can't give you a source. I do have one source, some of Evola's letters to Guenon (or better put only Guenon's responses), dated for the eighteenth of April 1949 asking him if he knew anything of certain intiatic organizations still existent in the West. This is six years later, and not directly in line, but it's something.

In my copy of the Path to Cinnabar Evola states that the shell fragment partially paralyzed his lower limbs.

As for Post World War Two, there are some issues with this section; mostly ones concerned with the dates you fetched for these books. First off, Yoga of Power. Evola states that he first published it in 1925 under the name Man as Potency. This is listed in Cinnabar My encounters with the Pagan Myth. Then had a revised second edition, he included new ideas about Tantra and Shakti within, and called that one the Yoga of Power. Finally my own copy of the book states that it was first printed in 1968. Meditations on the peaks was written way back in the period of 1930 to 1942 according to the foreword of my copy. Furthermore, it was made of a collection of articles he had done at the time. It was not written in 1974. Also, for path of enlightenment according to Mithraic mysteries, the date is stated as 1977. This is problematic because Evola died in 1974.

We should list the specific Fascist groups he influenced. The MSI, the Black Legion (LET THE GALAXY BURN!), and FAR. Also I for one think we should include some quotes from his actual defense, he does a pretty good job of it.

Why is this information about Ride the Tiger here? Assuming it's accurate in the first place this properly belongs in the section that details the rest of his thought- not in the more biographical one.

As relates to the section on his death: Sounds a little unceremonious. I know i'm the only one here who sees him in a favorable light, but according to Dr. Hansen the events of his Death were a bit more characteristic. "he died on June 11, 1974, in the early afternoon. He asked to be lead from his desk and to the window from which one could see the hill of Janiculum (the holy hill sacred to Janus, the two faced God who gazes into this and the other world). There he tried to die "upright" as far as was possible with his paralysis- upright because, according to mythical Tradition, many heroes died in this manner (Roland, for example, who passed away leaning against a tree after being mortally wounded).

---

Philosophy

Now this section is where shit turns srs. As I previously stated Evola was not a simple figure, all of his ideas connected to each other like lines from the center of a circle to the radius. What is the customary amount of depth to go into here? I'm not going to go over this section line by line like I have previously for several reasons. 1) It would take me days. 2) The majority of this is garbage. It would be easier for me flatly to delete it all and start anew. I'm assuming someone who doesn't agree- and therefore somebody who didn't bother to try to understand Evola wrote this. If i'm wrong however, and it was a fellow Traditionalist who wrote this, then you need to learn some organization. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason in the order you put his ideas- I would almost guess it was written in haste. However, lucky for you and me, the work has already been done for us. Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World contains the contains pretty much the most important summary of his thought. And furthermore, there was a reason he introduced certain arguments and explanations when he did. Instead of spraying full force like a water hose, develop your ideas. And last but not least, it may not be prominent to discuss some of his ideas- do not cast pearls before swine. Evola's book on Alchemy for example is not something that just anybody can pick up and read. It requires some fairly in depth knowledge to make use of. Which is one of the main reasons I think Evola is so misunderstood, the majority of his thought requires a high level of investment, the political does not.

A couple of quick remarks then:

The first sentence about Nietzsche- out of place. Nietzsche may have influenced Evola, but others did far more than Nietzsche. Better mentioned would be Weinenger or Michelstaedter. Also why is Thus Spoke Zarathustra being cited as a source? Evola talks about Nietzsche in Path to Cinnabar.

It is only difficult to talk about influences due to Evola's incredible knowledge. There are dozens of bibliographic footnotes in Doctrine of the Awakening and the Hermetic Tradition. And what do you mean by "affinities could exist"? Did you not read a single book by Evola? He pretty openly talks about his sources, and more importantly; HE WROTE AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY TRACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS THOUGHT, what more could you need, someone to come to your house and spoon feed the information to you? Get off your ass and do some research.

The section about his views on Christianity is God awful and whoever wrote it should consider suicide. I don't want to sink to your level of cliche, but the author sounds like a butt hurt liberal trying to slander the man. Whats worse is that i'm taking the bait. Information is either thrown in with absolutely no regard for placement, or needlessly inflammatory. I'm not saying that the core of the information isn't correct, just composed in the most volatile way. " primordial-Hyperborean elements and the decadent Judaic elements on the other" that is some cringey shit right there.

The section on enlightenment is once again, not incorrect but simply badly worded and structured. Also pitifully undeveloped, mention should be made of Guenon's slam of reincarnationists should be mentioned too. I would also be careful in saying that the path to enlightenment is the subject of all his works, not wrong, but would be more accurate as Transcendence.

Asceses and Initiation- same problem as the others. I know it is difficult to some up so much thought, but I think this is one of those time where if you cannot do it properly- its better not to try. Now you risk butchering his work, and leading others to misunderstanding both Evola and the doctrine.

Metaphysics of War- better than the previous sections, but still wildly superficial.

Metaphysics of Sex- Actually have not read metaphysics of sex, but find it doubtful that the majority of the book was about homos.

Politics- here we go, I'd suggest sticking to the terms and words with which Evola said of himself or of hiss views. This personal analysis shit is weak sauce. The best way to keep it objective is by sticking to simply quoting the Baron and letting people interpret. Be sure to include context so the liberals have a harder time slandering him. The first citation is provided for in Path to Cinnabar or in Notes on the Third Reich, both go into detail. The second Citation needed can also be found in aforementioned books, or Revolt.

The Race section is cancer. Show me where he speaks well of the Nordic Race. He openly states in Notes on the Third Reich that they are more or less lifeless and spiritually bastardized. Stop trying to paint Evola as a Nazi. His Hyperborean man does not equal the Nazi's Aryan.

The Hyperborean is not the same as the Aryan. And why do you interpret the North South dichotomy in such a literal fashion? I always saw it in the same vein as the Alchemical Knowledge- that is a higher level of Truth.

I will concede that Evola did not care for black people. (Nor should he have).

The influences section is fine. Only thing that might be considered worth changing is mentioning that Bowden has passed away. He's not technically the chairman of the New Right anymore. Shame too, man could give a speech.

---

Alright that's it. A couple of concluding remarks will see me off:

1) In case I forgot to mention, or you forgot, the point to all this was to show that the article needs revision. Even if I haven't convinced anyone to take the Baron in good faith and remove the biased and inflammatory tone from the sections going over his thought, hopefully at least we can fix the sections with outright inaccurate information.

2) More pictures. There are several photos of Evola out there, but only one on the article- when you look at the Italian Julius Evola page, it's all kinds of fancy. Put up some of his paintings or book covers. Or maybe don't put up his paintings. Last but not least, a 2deep4u Latin quote: Plaudite amici, comoedia finita est! Squadala!

18explorer81 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Bruno Tellegra

---

Hello 18explorer81. You talk page posts must not contain any language like:

"I think the blacks belong right next to Evola's abstract paintings in the garbage"

or

"The section about his views on Christianity is God awful and whoever wrote it should consider suicide."

or you will find yourself unwelcome to Wikipedia. I recommend reading Wikipedia's policies (which I have hyperlinked in this text) on civility, verifiability, neutral point of view (especially as it relates to fringe material), and the purpose of these talk pages. Your posts must be brief and directly on the subject of how to improve the encyclopedia article, and any further uncivil language will not be tolerated.199.189.73.49 (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Italian Page

Hold up, why don't we just transcribe the Italian page to the English one? It appears to be far superior to this one. I would but I don't speak German. We should'nt let those baguette lovers show us up. 18explorer81 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Bruno Tellegra

Evola's Suppressed/Bowdlerized Thoughts on "Negroidal Issues"

This is the full Italian discussion Evola published in several publications or forms re: "Negroids" etc. - point being, Boutin is on target, we need more educated speakers of various European languages editing the article in this context; the English only speaking audience has not the full picture of Julius here; and sadly but truly, Inner Traditions, a Deepak Chopra-level, conventionalist non-Traditional-oriented, philosophically-bourgeois "New Age" venue of apparently reprehensibly venal ethos, stands as professionally corrupt for trying to soften and render anodyne to modern folk the "Baron" in all his (in)famy of belief:

"Malgrado la voga che ha la “smitizzazione” quando si tratta di valori autentici e tradizionali, oggi ha una grande portata il processo di creazione di nuovi tabù. Entità profane vengono “tabuizzate”, vengono costituite a realtà sacrosante delle quali si deve parlare solo col più profondo rispetto e con venerazione. Guai a chi ardisca dire qualcosa contro di esse: un coro di indignate proteste lo coprirà d’infamia, nel segno, naturalmente, del supertabù, della Santa Democrazia. Su due di tali tabù, vogliamo qui portare l’attenzione. Il primo si riferisce al negro. È stata la stessa razza bianca istupidita a tabuizzare il negro. Col bandire il principio dell’autodecisione dei popoli e con l’usare le truppe di colore in insensate guerre fratricide, essa aveva già creato un’arma che si è ritorta contro di lei presa nel suo complesso, arma che non sarebbe stata troppo pericolosa se poi i bianchi non fossero stati improvvisamente presi dalla psicosi anticolonialista, disconoscendo tutto ciò che di realmente positivo la colonizzazione, a controbilanciarne gli aspetti negativi, aveva apportato fra i popoli africani, conducendoli ad un livello a cui mai e poi mai essi sarebbero giunti con le loro sole forze e capacità. In secondo luogo, sono stati dei bianchi, intellettuali e artisti francesi di sinistra insieme al clan di J. P. Sartre, ad inventare e ad esaltare la nègritude creando un mito a cui mai il negro sarebbe venuto a pensare la nègritude, concetto assurdo che vorrebbe far valere pei negri qualcosa di simile a ciò che per l’Italia è l’italianità, per la Germania la germanicità, e via dice [most of this text removed as a copyright violation, see note below]

“I tabù dei nostri tempi”, in Il Borghese, 30 gennaio 1969, ora in J. Evola, I testi di Totalità, il Borghese, la Destra, Edizioni di Ar, Padova 2003, pp. 98-100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:15BA:35EA:81F3:7489 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately what 2602:304:B34B:A940:15BA:35EA:81F3:7489 points to here, is present in numerous Wiki pages, in particular biographies (but not only), where an hagiographic aura and the associated, misleading idea of neutrality obstruct readers on their quest for a proper understanding of facts and concepts. Carlotm (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I left the first few sentences in the above text added by the IP, the rest I've removed as a copyright violation. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)]

Evola quotes removed seem to also have been a copyright violation

I or someone needs to check, but it looks as though that book was published recently enough for those extensive quotes to have been a copyright violation. In any case we shouldn't be using primary sources that way. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the material removed here, which dealt, in great and totally unnecessary detail, with Evola's views on homosexuality, a subject with little relevance to his work as a whole. I suggest that Evola's views about homosexuality could be summarized in a single sentence such as "Evola was critical of homosexuality", or "Evola was opposed to homosexuality". That is all its importance actually warrants. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Article picture

I very strongly dislike the idea of using a painting or other artistic representation of a person to illustrate the infobox of an article about that person. The image added here should be replaced by a proper photograph. In fact, I'm tempted to suggest that it should be removed even if a photograph cannot be found as a replacement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would normally agree, however there are a couple of reasons this is a unique case. This is the best possible image found in Commons and the portrait itself is an accurate near-tracing of the photo, and here must be some copyright issues over at Commons. See Kim Jong-un, a very famous and notable article even though the main image is a drawing of the leader. If it's any compromise, I would have this be a locum tenens and attempt to find a free-use photograph online.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I realize that a painting or drawing can sometimes be used as second-best alternative to a photo. Really, though, it needs to be as appropriate a painting, etc, as possible. The image at Kim Jong-un is perhaps somewhat idealized, but at least basically lifelike. The image you added here may be the best possible image available at Commons, but it is too clearly an artwork rather than a straightforward representation of a person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally feel like an article of this length and quality needs some kind of lede image unless it's a topic isn't visual. Otherwise it feels incomplete and shoddy. Do you have any other ideas for what can be put?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I have not. It remains my view that the inappropriate painting you added in place of an actual photograph of the article subject should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that it is inappropriate at all. The photographs of this philosopher are few from what I see, and what is available is apparently under copyright. I don't doubt I could find some exception, but the painting(?) is practically a trace of the original photograph and illustrates to the reader the appearance of Julius Evola. If that doesn't convince you, I think we need a third voice on this.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I am prejudiced, but I find the painting (or drawing, or whatever it is) to be absolutely repulsive, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good enough reason to remove it. The broader point that an infobox about a person should not, if possible, be illustrated by an artistic re-creation of that person stands. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You have a point. I will remove it, but I really wish there was some photo we could use.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As there is currently no photo in the infobox, I moved an existing photo from within the article body to the infobox under the presumptions that any photo is preferable to no photo. Revert, change, remove as you see fit. Also see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Julius Evola for reference, ensuring all parties are aware of other image option for the full article. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Evola A Foundational Racist

Any rational characterization of Julius Evola will call him a racist. Evola is not JUST a racist, he is a foundational thinker of modern racism. He calls himself "scientific", of course. His work cites no science which has ever withstood modern peer review. That Julius Evola's racism is not racism in Julius Evola's mind is immaterial. Reading ONLY his "Doctrine of Awakening" is enough for any rational person to conclude about Evola - as he concludes about himself - that he is racist Dlawbailey (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about the article. I suggest that you please consult and fully review WP:NPOV and WP:RS, two key foundations of this site, to assist you in neutrality, objectivity, and pure informational additions in your future edits. I wish you the best of luck. --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your concern about "sources" should be allayed by the fact that I cite Evola himself. In his "Doctrine of Awakening" Evola states that the concept of the "Aryan" race is fundamental to his ideas. The concept of the Aryan race is racism defined. Again, Evola is not trying to prove something and incidentally running afoul of a racism charge. Julius Evola embraces racism a priori. Any defense of Evola suggesting he is not racist begs the fundamental question Evola himself is trying to tackle. I will add direct quotes and a new section on racism and racist ideology if you and other editors prefer. Dlawbailey (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not your intent, but your execution and tone. It is already discussed in the lede on his spiritual and transcendent perception of race that was similar but at odds to traditional fascism. You need to use neutral and well-sourced language for such a topic, and direct quotations as you said, perferably in its own section.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Grand! Whether Evola is or is not a fascist is not my concern and is immaterial to the important information on Evola that any rational reader would expect. I am not saying anything about Evola and fascism, I am merely pointing out what Evola himself said about race. I will be adding an entire section on Julius Evola's racism, since racism is fundamental to his entire "philosophy" and rhetoric. Naturally, such an important concept will have to be reflected in the lede. Never fear, I am up to the task. Good luck trying to keep the word "racism" off of the page of a foundational racist thinker. I am SURE you have your reasons. Dlawbailey (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not shoot the messenger, I am not trying to dissuade Evola's racial doctrines, which is stated in the lede. All I'm saying is to keep with Wikipedia policy. Your solution that you stated is much more preferable and professional.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Would there be an objection to adding this statement to the article?

• Evola advocated "spiritual racism", as opposed to Nazi Germany's "biological racism".

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I would not object to a characterization of Evola as a "spiritual racist". I believe that once we use the word ""spiritual", words such as "fundamental" and "formal" also follow, but I would be happy to limit my discussion to "spiritual" racism.Dlawbailey (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Already stated in the lede: " One of his successes was in regard to the racial laws; his advocacy of a spiritual consideration of race won out in the debate in Italy, rather than a solely biological reductionism concept popular in Germany.", which I find to be satisfactory neutral. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about Evola's relationship to fascism, neo-fascism, or the Alt-Right. I am talking about the fact that Evola is, proudly, a racist thinker and that racism is fundamental to his entire philosophy, per Evola himself. Again, ANY LENGTH of direct quote needed will be supplied and the reader can decide for herself. Dlawbailey (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dlawbailey: To substantiate that Evola was indeed a racist, please use secondary sources that have written about Evola. See, for example, Tamir Bar-On (2007): Where Have All the Fascists Gone?. Or search Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to revert to sources that will inevitably have some bias for or against Evola when Evola himself is so clear on his views. We don't need a secondary source to characterize what physicists believe if the equations are clear and informative. To object to the use of Evola's own words, you have to make some argument that the use of these words could possibly mischaracterize Evola's beliefs. Until you do, I will keep quoting the subject of the article directly, which is Wikipedia policy. If you delete Evola's own words without reason or discussion, then you are vandalizing the page.Dlawbailey (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Original research tag

Many sub-sections in the Philosophy section lack citations and appear to contain original research based on the subject's works. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the tag. I will scan through the sections and add references where I can! --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see what's going on here. Sorry about the strong language. I agree the Philosophy section - indeed the whole article - is a bit of a disaster. Doing my best to at least make the text agree with the sources. Found multiple instances of sources that immediately contradicted the text in which the were cited. Dlawbailey (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

New Section On Evola's Racism

In this editor's view, other editor's are going through inappropriate machinations to avoid having the words "racist" and "racism" on the top of the page. I am not seeking to characterize Evola's views in any way other than that in which Evola himself characterized them. I have repeatedly agreed to include any Evola quotes other editors require, so there is NO danger of original research. Further removal of Evola's own language from this page is inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's standards. If editors disagree, please note previous disputes. On Wikipedia, historical figures - particularly authors - are responsible for their own words. Dlawbailey (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines emphasise secondary sources, of which there are plenty that connect Evola to racism: sample Google books preview. The material is much less likely to be challenged when cited to secondary sources.

Where Have All the Fascists Gone? has 38 mentions of "Evola". I did not check the other books from above, but his one is RS; see: Tamir_Bar-On#Where_Have_All_the_Fascists_Gone.3F; it's written by an academic. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines clearly allow and encourage the use of direct quotations from a subject when the subject is the clearest possible source. "Racism" is a loaded term and a loaded charge - except for Evola, who is an avowed, theoretical racist and (at least in his own mind) a foundational thinker of modern racism. There are a lot of people who are called "academics". Wikipedia prefers the most authoritative sources be used. There is no more authoritative source on Julius Evola's beliefs than Julius Evola.

What specifically are you trying to avoid seeing on this page and why? How does a section that only seeks to quote the subject on his own views make the article slanted or unclear?. Evola is already used as a source in this article. At some point, removing Evola's own words becomes a tendentious edit on your part. We are quickly reaching that point. Change the section in ANY way you want, but do not remove it again, please. Dlawbailey (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's a misunderstanding. If Evola was a racist, I would very much support adding content to this effect to the article. But using Evola's own words could amount to "original research" (please see WP:OR). In addition, using Wikipedia as a platform for Evola's view is not the purpose of the encyclopedia (that's why I tagged the article as "original research"). Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I moved and renamed the section on race and racism. We agree that there's a misunderstanding. The question is the content and purpose of your throwing away the subject's own words. Evola is already quoted as a source, as indeed is the norm in Bio articles. Nothing could be clearer or less biased than Evola himself stating his own views on race without self-contradiction. IF you find some self-contradiction or academic research that calls into question the clarity of Evola's own words, then please supply it. I would welcome it. Meanwhile, let the man speak for himself, as he was proud to do. Evola was not shy or unclear about his racism. To my knowledge, he never backed off of it or attempted to modify it. Racism was a fundamental, spiritual concept for Evola - again, per his own words. If YOU feel you can improve the clarity by citing a secondary source, then I challenge you to do so, as is your responsibility as an editor. Dlawbailey (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The article already has a very long (too long) subsection titled "Race" under the "Philosophy" section, so why is this also in the "Biography" section? Also, this needs a more specific reference than just a generic link to a page listing his writings. Asking people to read all his works to form their own opinion defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia, and providing two quotes to support this is just begging for accusations of cherry-picking. A reliable independent source would be much better, and that shouldn't be hard to find. The burden is on you, too, for this. Expecting others to cite your additions isn't going to work. Grayfell (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem here. Please bear with me and see the next section. I was shocked by how far out of context the article had taken Julius Evola and how badly skewed the POV was. I am trying to improve the article, with many challenges ahead. Again, please see next section coming soon. Dlawbailey (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Substantial Text And Even Sources May Need to Be Removed

I think footnote 8 needs to be removed. The article is unfindable and seems to be a review or conversation and not a true academic work. Other editors please advise. Never done this before. Dlawbailey (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I also think H.T. Hansen is a questionable source in that the text here comes from book forwards and essays rather than academic papers per se.Dlawbailey (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the "Tradition" section needs the entire last paragraph removed. It's just long, not relevant to the rest of the text or terribly revelatory. Happy to have it restored if others degree. Responding here to @Grayfell concerns. Dlawbailey (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Race" section was immensely long and I removed some of the discourse on mysticism and race. I just could not see the relevance of this level of detail. Also contained what seemed to me original research. Badly cited. As always, editors are welcome to put stuff back, but the excessive length of this section has already been noted and flagged problems abound in this part of the text. Dlawbailey (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've generally found the article to be problematic too (see section above "Original research tag"). These uncited passages based on an editor's interpretation of Evola's works should go. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, would the article still make sense if you just removed them? I'm all for it, but I don't want to remove too much myself as I seem to be alone in re-writing the thing. Don't want it to be just a Dlawbailey enterprise. Dlawbailey (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-working Article From Top Down

I am starting with Paul Furlong's book because it is the most-recent and most-complete academic portrayal of Evola. I want to note that A. James Gregor is an important, but problematic source. Gregor's emphasis is on the relationship between Marxism and Fascism. To that end, he downplays the influence of non-Marxist lines of thought on the history of fascism, dismissing Evola's practical influence on Mussolini's fascism. Gregor's language is also very casual and contains much heterodox opinion, yet his scholarship on Fascism is undeniable. I believe the first purpose of this article, however, should be portraying Evola's own ideas and their inspirational relationship to political currents. To that end, I propose leaving Gregor for the "Relationship With Fascism" section. Please comment. Dlawbailey (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems your style of putting "racist" or "fascist" in so many sentences has come at the cost of some facts. "Spiritual racism" is accurate and fine, however Evola wasn't a fascist. They tried to prosecute him after the war in Italy, but couldn't because all he did was some contract work for Mussolini. Essentially, Evola felt that the fascists didn't understand his ideas so he stopped bothering with them. He did have some influence early on, but few people actually listened to him, unlike Giovanni Gentile. Though, I suppose it depends if you are using "fascism" to refer to the actual Italian political movement or just a synonym for far-right. There was a well-sourced chapter called "Politics" in an earlier version explaining well how he differed from mainstream fascism but you simply removed it. Also what's up with putting alt-right stuff in the influence section? Seems rather silly. --Pudeo (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to read the Furlong book but I think Gregor makes a convincing argument about the peripheral influence of Evola. It is in post-War Italy that his influence seemed to become more prominent, partially due to his occultism. His popularity with some of the European far right and white supremacists today seems important and odd to exclude. BS6 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Butchering of this page

As someone who has read what many consider the core trilogy of Evola's work (Ride the Tiger, Men Amongst the Ruins, and Revolt Against the Modern World) I am deeply saddened by what I can only call a butchery of what was once a decent summarization of Julius Evola. The very first sentence of the article is now inaccurate stating that he was a fascist when in fact he never belonged to the fascist party and some of his first writings were criticisms of fascism (albeit from a right wing perspective) during a time when fascism was at the height of it's popularity. Julius Evola considered himself a traditionalist (and anti-fascist), advocated for a traditionalist philosophy, and I strongly believe that calling him a traditionalist is an infinity more accurate term and should be the first descriptor of Evola in a biographical context. While it might be appropriate to highlight that some fascists and neo-fascists took some inspiration from him it should be noted he himself never advocated for that philosophy. It's also ridiculous to consider him one of the most influential fascists when he was never a fascist himself.

I would also like to make an objection to the fact that one of the biggest highlights of his initial description is the charge of racism against him. While there are a good deal of racist undercurrents in Evola's writings (Which I of course do not condone) The primary purpose and function of Evola's writings were a critique of modernity and the detailing of his esoteric beliefs derived from Indo-European tradition. Any accurate description would include a description of his political and esoteric values like anti-Liberalism, anti-capitalism, anti-marxist, his belief in the transcendent, his critiques of modernity, his strong hierarchal views, his belief in hermeticism, his sexology, his practice of magic, his study of Hinduism and other oriental religions/mysticism, and his hypothesis that humanity was in the "Kali Yuga" dark age before mentioning his racial theories, as the latter more derived from the former than reverse and the former were the main subjects of his books. While it would be negligent to not mention his (in my opinion abhorrent) racist views it is even more so to put them in front of many of the ideals he held highest in value.

Julius Evola is obviously a highly controversial figure and while I believe it is necessary to tread carefully around such characters it seems to me obvious that the article in it's current rendition is full of political bias. The majority of the article seems devoted towards his racial views and his "relationship" with fascism. There is a strong effort to make the charges of racism and fascism first and forefront and in my mind that can only be attributed to leftist, progressive (dare I say Marxist?) backlash or an attempt to completely invalidate a man they disagree with, with labels (1/2 of which don't even apply). I do not believe holding one or two "incorrect" opinions should completely invalidate a persons beliefs, especially one who writes intelligently and philosophically.

I made an account for the first time to make these comments about this page so I thought I would contribute here rather than attempt an ambitious edit of the article myself with no experience in the matter and hope those who do undertake an edit will take my advice into consideration and formulate the article in an unbiased manner. Please forgive me for any breaches of etiquette or guidelines (due to my newness) and the long post.

I recommend anyone who wants a good summary of Evola's world-view to read the forward in Revolt Against the Modern World.

Zeander (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say and support atleast a partial revertion. A problem in Wikipedia, even if we are talking about a decent article, is focusing on a very narrow media sexy part. Race was just one subject Evola would write about, not the most important. The older article version had more diverse set of information. --Pudeo (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Evola was an ethusiastic fascist for a good amount of their time in power. He criticized them only because they wouldn't listen to him to the degree he thought they should but he never broke from them in any significant way. This sounds a lot like the special pleading one hears for D'annunzio. Just because they disagreed with certain fascist actions hardly makes them anti-fascist. BS6 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Evola One of the Most Important Fascist Thinkers??

This claim in the firt paragraph keeps getting restored despite my sourced addition from strong sources that Evolva was a peripheral figure in Italian Fascism and soon fell of favour and was dismissed by Mussolini as a 'hysterical fanatic.' Richard Drake, “Julius Evola, Radical Fascism, and the Lateran Accords,” Catholic Historical Review, no. 74 (1988), p. 414; and D. A. Binchy, Church and State in Fascist Italy (London: Oxford University Press, 1941), p. 119.

This is more strongly supported and cited than nearly anything else in the article but it keeps being removed? The only rationale would be that the editor is pushing an agenda to exaggerate Evola's standing and importance which is in contradiction to neutrality. BS6 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:, please don't revert edits with the note "there is no consensus" when you aren't even participating here. You very well know this article was just recently rewritten by a single editor with no other consensus than to remove OR. Also, what's up with rev-deleting a revert to the old version? --Pudeo (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To be quite clear about it, I do not have the power to delete revisions from the article's history. Only administrators can do that, and I am not an administrator. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that, I just pointed it out in the same message. I've now made the following changes: reworded the lead, stating that he foremost was a philosopher. Starting the article with "was one of the most influential fascists" is a bit silly, as his influence to fascism stems from being a philosopher. The "spiritual racism" and influence stays in the lead, but I also re-added information that he wasn't a member in the Fascist Party. It has to stay. Also, I re-added a referenced chapter (looks fine to me) from the old version describing contradicting scholar views on his relationship and influence to fascism. Dlawbailey's version simply omitted all referenced views that didn't identify Evola closely within the Italian fascist movement. --Pudeo (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I did a small partial revertion bringing back referenced information from the older version (before Dwladbailey's complete rewrite, he didn't need a consensus did he?) and FreeKnowledgeCreater reverted me with the note ": Rv - please discuss such controversial changes before making them. " eventhough I have discussed this in three different talk page sections. Also why are you stating I should follow BRD when you aren't even contributing anything to the talk page? --Pudeo (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Pudeo, to "discuss" things means to discuss them with other people. You simply announcing your views is not a discussion. Your changes are obviously controversial, and you should not repeat them without agreement with other editors, which it appears you do not have. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I raised my objections to the complete rewrite by a single editor on 1 December and no one replied. Other critiques were presented by Zeander and BS6. No one replied. How can we have BRD when no one is replying? Also how do you claim there is a consensus for the complete rewrite when it hasn't been supported here, other than to remove OR? That is the most arrogant behauvior I've ever seen during the 10 years I have been a member here. --Pudeo (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, please explain how my partial revertion to referenced information which was in the article for years and removed without discussion is "obviously controversial"? --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman. Maybe you want to participate in some discussion here. How are University of California, Berkeley's Professor of Political Science A. James Gregor views on Evola's relationship with fascism not notable enough to be presented on the article? He does not think Evola can be straight called a fascist. Why should we present Aaron Gillette's view as the single truth, removing other views by scholars? --Pudeo (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I re-added the cited para with this edit. I disagreed with the removal of cited information from the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. James A. Gregor likes to point out differences and disgruntlements Evola had with Italian fascism. In his 2006 book The Search for Neofascism he criticizes vague use of the term neofascism. Then some authors like Gillette, who write about neofascism, disagree with him. I think both views should be in the article. But an accurate way to describe Evola's relationship with fascism would also be to pick up a good biography and detail all the agreements, disagreements and work he did with them. --Pudeo (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

recent edit

I recently made this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=756579898&oldid=756579478

The previous article included poor sourcing (including a link to an amazon.com!), selective use of primary sources (e.g. "There are hundreds of examples of racist language and concepts in Evola, For example, in "The Doctrine of Awakening" Evola writes" - sourcesone might find differing primary sources (I might as well cite "The Path of Cinnabar" - his statement (p. 170) where Evola states that "In my study of race, I argued that in accordance with the legitimate inner hierarchy of man, the inner case ought to be regarded as superior to the external and merely biological form" [3] (see also and particularly p. xiii of that text, the publisher's note which cites secondary and scholarly sources distancing Evola from biological racism), or even the fact that Evola's text on Buddhism was endorsed by the Pali society [4]),

so I cited the secondary source Furlong, and a statement " Arthur de Gobineau, most remembered for developing the theory of the Aryan master race and helping to legitimize racism, is constantly cited by Evola as fundamental to his thinking on race.", that contradicts the source literature - e.g. pp. 64-65 of Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke [5]

My initial comment in the lede was appropriate in light of the Fascism sub-section, though I will have to provide much more substantia. I merged the race and fascism sections into one section because as presented the argument was redundant and suffered from the defects outlined above. Evola is known for his esotericism and relationship with fascism. If you want me to put the Furlong item after the ur-group subsection, I would be more than willing to oblige.

I feel that my lede summed up Evola's perspective (and the word "extreme right" finds its reflection in sources - e.g. [6]), his esotericism for which he is known (e.g. [7][8]), and I did not minimize his contribution to fascism (though texts where Evola distances himself from fascism include "Fascism Viewed from the Right", see also the anthology of writings of Evola entitled "A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism", and A. James Gregor further highlights the distinction [9]).

The present article reads like a "non-sober" (if we are to be euphemistic) writing from somebody emotionally anguished by Evola, who attempts to tendentiously stack proofs rather than objectively describe the subject. People who have more than a fleeting knowledge of the subject will wonder at Wikipedia's neutrality in similar articles, and will dismiss such items. The edit I provided is more sober, and will make such dismissals less likely. I will need to re-write this article to accurately reflect the diversity of sources, not only on Evola's political thought, but on his religious thought.Gggtt (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

current revision is consistent with established article, but merely removes egregious errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=756661803&oldid=756661341

I will attempt to build consensus towards a rewrite at a later time.Gggtt (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many weak points you point out or how many reliable sources you find, FreeKnowledgeCreator will revert you without participating on the talk page or using any sources himself. I'm sorry. --Pudeo (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You could try taking FreeKnowledgeCreator to the Administrator's Noticeboard if you are bothered by his behavior. I likely won't be back here until February.Gggtt (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Evola was found not to be a fascist in court, and one only need highlight this book to see how inaccurate such a description of him is: https://books.google.com/books?id=LRCiCgAAQBAJ (see also p. xv regarding harassment of him by fascists, and p. xxii concerning some of the details of the court case where he was pronounced "innocent" of the charge that he was a fascist)Gggtt (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

other sources

here I will attempt to collect other secondary sources on Evola's politics and esotericism, others should do the same, with a focus on the latter.Gggtt (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Aryan-ness of the Doctrine of Awakening"

If you actually look at the claims in context, Evola merely stated that the traditions themselves had aspects of Aryanism in them. Thus the first paragraph states:

Our use of the term Aryan in connection with this doctrine is primarily justified by direct reference to the texts. The term ariya (Skt.: ārya), which in fact means "Aryan," recurs throughout the canon. The path of awakening is called Aryan—ariya magga: the four fundamental truths are Aryan ariya-saccāni; the mode of knowledge is Aryan—ariyanaya; the teaching is called Aryan (particularly that which considers the contingency of the world') and is, in turn, addressed to the āriyā; the doctrine is spoken of as accessible and intelligible, not to the common crowd, but only to the ariya. The term ariya has sometimes been translated as "saint." This, however, is an incomplete translation; it is even discordant when we consider the notable divergence between what is concerned and all that "saintliness" means to a Western man. Nor is the translation of ariya as "noble" or "sublime" any more satisfactory. They are all later meanings of the word, and they do not convey the fullness of the original nor the spiritual, aristocratic, and racial significance that, nevertheless, is largely preserved in Buddhism. This is why Orientalists, such as Rhys Davids and Woodward, have maintained that it is better not to translate the term at all, and they have left ariya wherever it occurs in the texts, either as an adjective or as a noun meaning a certain class of individuals. In the texts of the canon the ariya are the Awakened Ones, those who have achieved Liberation and those who are united to them since they understand, accept, and follow the ariya Doctrine of Awakening

The other paragraph states:

This is true also more specifically. Although we can apply the term Aryan as a generalization to the mass of Indo-European races as regards their common origin (the original homeland of such races, the ariyānem-vaējō, according to the memory consciously preserved in the ancient Iranian tradition, was a hyperborean region or, more generally, northwestern),' yet, later, it became a designation of caste. Ārya stood essentially for an aristocracy opposed, both in mind and body, not only to obscure, bastard, "demoniacal" races among which must be included the Kosalian and Dravidian strains found by the Hyperboreans in the Asiatic lands they conquered, but also, more generally, to that substratum that corresponds to what we would probably call today the proletarian and plebeian masses born in the normal way to serve, and that in India as in Rome were excluded from the bright cults characteristic of the higher patrician, warrior, and priestly castes.

As for the rest of this, see Evola's critique of scientific racism in "A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism". Far right authors who make use of Evola note (and I'm not suggesting the source be used, but just making a point to support this edit) that "Italian Traditionalist Julius Evola attempted to counter the later influence of Hitlerian racism on Italian Fascism by developing a “metaphysical racism,” and the concept of the “race of the spirit,” which has its parallels in Spengler, whose approach to race is in the Traditionalist mode of the German Idealists." (Spengler himself said "But in speaking of race, it is not intended in the sense in which it is the fashion among anti-Semites in Europe and America use it today: Darwinistically, materially. Race purity is a grotesque word in view of the fact that for centuries all stocks and species have been mixed, and that warlike - that is, healthy - generations with a future before them have from time immemorial always welcomed a stranger into the family if he had "race", to whatever race it was he belonged. Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it."

and the author also notes Evola's statement [in The Secret of Degeneration] that there “have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure, as is especially clear in certain groups that have suffered slow, inexorable extinction despite remaining as racially isolated as if they were islands”)Gggtt (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Evola's racism

People seem to have a misunderstanding of Evola's version of racism, and the article introduces confusions. Primary sources given in the anthology A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism include the following statements (though from his theory he nevertheless made extreme right statements): "This is the source of the error of racists like de Gobineau:[5] the decadence of a culture is not — as they claim — the result of the mixture of the race that originally called it to life with other races. The true cause is not ethnic, biological, or demographic degeneration. The truth is rather that a race with its own culture degenerates when its spirit declines, when the intimate tension to which it owed its ‘form’ and its ‘type’ disappears. It is then that the race changes or is corrupted because it is damaged in its root. Then the ethnic and biological elements are deprived of the close link that held them together in the unity of form, and the first alteration will suffice to produce rapid degeneration and corruption. The collapse and change of the stock is not only moral, but more than that, ethnic and biological. In this case it returns to the level of the simple forces of nature, and succumbs to its own contingency on this level. [...]

when a race has a truly strong and complete culture for its soul and basis, the simple fact of its contact with and even mixing with other races far from simply signifies its destruction. On the contrary, its sprit may work like an invisible and irresistible ferment on the foreign elements, so as to reduce them to the same type. There is no need to mention the historical examples of this process, which are known to everybody — the process of the passage from the idea of race to the idea of empire. [...]

in the higher idea of race, the potential of the imperial function is inherent, which surpasses both levelling internationalism and a disintegrating racism. [...]

This is the concluding point. To the return of the mystique of the ‘primordial horde’, to racist ideology that subordinates everything to the right of a mere community of blood, soil, and origin, there is opposed the aristocratic conception and tradition of race as a manifestation of a force of ‘culture’, a tradition that finds its natural crowning achievement in the Roman idea of imperium. [...]

And on the purely scientific, biological, and anthropological level, what about the Jewish problem? Do they not notice the absurdity of insisting on dealing exclusively with it from the purely scientific point of view, while the Jewish problem in Italy has been imposed not on a biological basis, but on an essentially political and spiritual one? The banning of Jews from public life in Italy did not take place because their lips and noses and cranial indices were actually radically different from those of some ‘Mediterranid’ racial components, which are also present in our people. It happened rather on the basis of their works, their lifestyle and actions, and their spirit. Anyhow, from the ‘purely anthropological’ point of view, I find talk of a ‘Hebrew race’ rather risky. It is well-known that modern Israel does not constitute a race according to the prevalent opinion in modern racism, but rather a people comprised of rather diverse racial components. [...]

Since it is useless to hide the fact: especially today, it is the Italian people who are wondering whether, finally, Jews are not becoming a kind of scapegoat, since they see everywhere one hundred percent ‘Aryan’ types who brazenly hoard, force prices up and take unfair profits, social climbers, and — why not? — even journalists who do not hesitate to resort to the most twisted and unfair methods for polemical purposes. [...] We wonder, in fact, what will come of a sentiment taken from disciplines in which people continue to seriously believe in man’s having descended from the monkey, more or less implicitly, and where, with the predominance of the theory of a single origin for life, it is necessary to resort to a materialistic determinism. Otherwise they may have recourse to the miraculous idea of ‘scientifically’ inexplicable mutations, in order to ‘explain’ the differentiation of species and races from one hypothetical homogenous original substance. Try to touch similar scientistic superstitions, or try to recall the testimony of all ancient peoples concerning the earliest races, which were not animals but almost ‘divine’, and you will suddenly see yourself accused of an anti-scientific mentality and even of…magic. This is exactly the charge levelled at us by Canella,[11] for instance, addressing we do not know what innocent souls, in a typically inconclusive work which was supposed to treat racial psychology, in his words, ‘scientifically’. [...]

we in Italy do not find ourselves in a Soviet regime, nor in the times of the Jacobin Enlightenment, which would mean that the adjective ‘spiritual’, when added to the noun ‘racism’, would signify shame and disrepute. We naturally prefer to define our terms, by saying that spirit, for us, does not mean either philosophical deviation or ‘theosophy’, or a mystical, devotional evasion, but simply what well-born people always understood by race in better times: that is, rectitude, internal integrity, character, dignity, manliness, and an immediate and direct sensitivity for all values, virtues that stand at the foundation of all human greatness and that tower over, and so dominate, the level of all contingent and material reality. [...] Hitler wrote, ‘Greeks and Romans found themselves so close to Germans because they had their roots in a single fundamental race, which is why the immortal creations of the ancient peoples exercise an attraction on their descendants who are racially related to them.’ It seems to us, on the other hand, that this very question should lead to something more than mere racism. In particular, Romans and Germans agreed with one another and understood one another — and created the strongest type of civilisation that Europe has ever known — in a period, the imperial Middle Ages, that was dominated not by racist particularism, but by a universal idea. The Middle Ages shows us one of the most distinct examples of a super-political and super-national unity, which acted formatively from above and according to a single principle that, far from being smashed by ethnic egoisms and nationalistic prevarications, ended up being applied to different races in different forms, but also such as to create, through an intimate affinity of spirit, a corpus, a grandiose and marvelous ordinatio ad unum,[2] in which the individual does not end up frustrated but spiritually integrated. As much as we have studied not only Hitler’s writings, but also the writings of the chief National Socialist ideologues, it is still not clear to us if, in the last instance, the deep soul of the revolutionary current of the swastika is oriented toward one or the other of the two directions we discussed above. The fundamental problem of the Europe of the future seems to us to be the following: overcoming the internationalist collapse and being reintegrated into values of quality, race, and difference; in such a way, however, so as not to end up in the pluralism of closed unities and of ideas that have passed into the service of matter and empirical politics, but instead in a way that leaves open the possibility of the formation of a higher, ecumenical reality that is suited to unite the nations in spirit, in a manly way, without confusing them in body."

One can of course cite his articles "The Hegemony of the White Races": http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/06/the-hegemony-of-the-white-races/, "Racism & Anti-Semitism": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/racism-and-anti-semitism/, and "Negrified America": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/negrified-america/

Evola's attitude was undoubtedly "softer" than the Nazis, witness for instance his praise for Carlo Michelstaedter, whose ideas contributed to his theory of the "absolute individual" (see Furlong's overview and Evola's "The Path of Cinnibar") though I am unaware of him ever saying anything positive about a single black person.

Also, even though he argued that humans possess the capacity for self-trancendance, he argued that alleged "spiritual hierarchy" took place within a caste framework - such a viewpoint, if not inherently racist, suggests immutable differences.Gggtt (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be much more readable if you summarized, or at least broke-up the wall of text into multiple paragraphs.

This page is for improving the article, not general discussion, per WP:NOTFORUM. As for sources, see WP:PRIMARY if you haven't already. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and as such, we use secondary sources for analysis and interpretation. For prolific and controversial authors like Evola, deciding on which primary quotes to include and which to ignore would almost certainly be a form of interpretation. Whatever perspective we highlight would be non-neutral without reliable, secondary sources providing context. If reliable, independent sources are not emphasizing a quote, neither should the article. Likewise, if reliable, independent sources do not describe his particular flavor of racism in a certain way, neither should the article. In general, Wikipedia favors modern scholars for this context, also. With that in mind, what changes to the article, exactly, are you proposing? Grayfell (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Evola's racism is cultural and not biological (as explicitly shown by the quoted excerpts) though there are some contradictions with that. Editors may wish to flesh this out with secondary sources. Furlong's treatment of Evola - Social and Political Thought of Julius Evola - seems like a fair, though critical, overview, and possibly it could be cited more.

Aside from that, the Italian Wikipedia is likely superior on this subject. I don't know Italian, but if it is possible to request help for foreign language translations, more experienced editors may wish to do so, and derive from: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

I have limited time, and will likely not be contributing to this further, but these are suggestions for editors who wish to upgrade the article.Gggtt (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

making sense of Evola's propositions

It seems that the type of person Evola would advocate for would look like some kind of synthesis of contraries possibly represented in people like Adolf Hitler and Jiddu Krishnamurti.Gggtt (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

redirects

Many links to books written by evola redirect back to this article, but this article has absolutely no info on said books besides the title. Sometimes, the links provided on this very article redirect back to this article. From a usability stand point, it is pretty stupid when a link on the article "Julius Evola" actually loops back to "Julius Evola". Because of this, every link on this article which just loops back to this exact same article, is pointless and should be removed until a separate page is provided.78.34.169.15 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

most recent edits

I corrected recent edits which contained errors. Steve Bannon was claimed to have been influenced by Evola, but this claim is unsupported

"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. “You’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, whether that government is in Beijing or that government is in Washington, DC, or that government is in Brussels. So we are the platform for the voice of that.”

I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.

You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character. He’s also very, very, very intelligent. I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of. Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand. However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put it on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first.": https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.ax5e661WR#.rbya44RZn

If people actually have an article linking Bannon's views themselves to Evola, rather than merely quoting his discussion of Evola's influence on Eurasianism, then please post it in the response to this.

There is also the problem of primary sources, they can be used (though judiciously), so I have kept the second sentence. In general though, given that Evola wrote contradictory things on racism (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julius_Evola#Evola.27s_racism), we don't want to rely on primary sources, lest the article become filled with contradictory statements, and original research interpretations.

Also some extra commentary has been provided to descriptions of magical idealism that does not trace back to the source cited. Evola's spiritual racism was developed after his theory of magical idealism, and that theory is well reflected in the article.Gggtt (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

when Bannon's own mouthpiece, Breitbart, describes the Alt-Right as influenced by Evola and Bannon himself sites Evola AT THE VATICAN, what more do you want, exactly? Look, Gggtt, you are clearly looking at Evola as an esotericist or whatever. We are in an age of the far right rising in the Western world, therefore Evola's position of influence with the racist far right is the most journalistically and historically important part of his legacy. Whatever you think of Evola, you just have to deal with that fact. Dlawbailey (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I can agree to keeping the article as it stands now.Gggtt (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Gggtt's Unique Viewpoint May Demand New Article

I respect any editor's prerogative to include a journalistically/academically valid material in an article, but this is a biographical article, not an article on Julius Evola's philosophy. If, for example Aleksander Dugin SAYS that Julius Evola inspires him and this is confirmed journalistically, then it's a journalistic fact. If Julius Evola supported Italian fascism and fascist thought, then we was a fascist. Evola was recognized both by himself and the Italian fascist community as a fascist supporter. He also wen out of his way to proclaim is support for fascism in journals of the time. If he later broke from the movement, so what? It doesn't change the journalistic fact of his involvement in fascism. If Il Duce says that Evola influenced his regime's official racist manifesto, then that is a journalistic fact.

Gggtt may have a more nuanced view of Evola's philosophy, but that is not the concern here. The Kali Yuga is NOT a journalistic fact. I therefore propose that if Gggtt wants to restore his over-lengthy edits explaining the details of Evola's philosophy that these edits be moved to a new article on Julius Evola's philosophy. Dlawbailey (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed to current article, so no need for further discussion along these lines. Aside from that though, although videos cannot be cited in wikipedia, the following video provides a broader perspective on this [10]Gggtt (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to be clear, I respect your views on Evola, but their place in THIS article is problematic for four reasons: 1) They are heterodox. This is not a problem in and of itself, but any Wikipedia article is inevitably a statement of journalistic and academic consensus rather than an argument about truth, excepting those situations where publically-available and clear findings of fact are available. For example, I argued for a heterodox position concerning an American bank. The consensus had ignored the bank's own financial statements, so my citing of those figures won the day. But this was not a matter of opinion, but numbers and statutes. 2) Historicity. Julius Evola is an authority on his own actions and experiences. He is only one authority among many on the nature of fascism and the state of mankind. Therefore, quoting Evola's mystical theories does not speak authoritatively to his place in history. 3) Integrity Whatever Evola said later, he is responsible journalistically and historically for his previous statements and relationships during the rise of fascism. That he thought his oan conception of fascism superior to others does not make him anti-fascist, or alienate him from the movement in which he thoroughly steeped himself. 4) A James Gregor's bias. Gregor is certainly a scholar of fascism, but his interpretation is heterodox and tendentious. Gregor wants to blame fascism on Marxism alone and to deny that Traditionalism is hand-in-glove with fascism. Yet he makes no HISTORICALLY persuasive argument that traditionalists who were part and parcel of the fascist movement should be separated from it. To the contrary, he notes again and again the commonality among Traditionalists, Fascists and Neo-Facists.

Finally, there can be no question about Evola's PRESENT influence. He is arguably the favorite philosopher of the racist far-right. Again, you have every right to try and separate Evola from this current, and you can make those arguments at length in a separate article about Evola's philosophy, which I encourage you to write. What the Wikipedia cannot accept, I think, is re-interpretation that results in whitewashing a super-influential racist and anti-semite. Dlawbailey (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)