Explain To Me The Philosophy of Julius Evola

[r3volution 3.0]

I have a general idea of Evola's views, from references in neoreactionary literature, but I'd like more detail.

I understand he was a monarchist, as am I, but what I've seen of his thought seems a bit fuzzy and mystical.

There are evidently several Evola fans around the forums, so I thought I'd ask you all to enlighten me.

Evola, why should I care?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Are there really other Evola enthusiasts? I don't know of any, other than me.

I do recommend reading him to really get a grasp on him; he's a very multifaceted thinker, and one of the most complex I've come across. I will try though.

Baron Julius Evola believed that civilization degenerates in cyclical stages, somewhat similar to Oswald Spengler. Rule by divine kings, rule by a warrior aristocracy, rule by merchants and finally rule by plebeians. Democracy most encapsulates the latter most stage. He believed that modernity had separated man, and - by extension - civilization from the metaphysical, the divine. He believed that both communism and capitalism (more accurately described as consumerism) lead to a ravenous materialism, one that destroys traditional culture, resulting in an atomistic civilization, one where people are separated from their communities, their neighbors, their race and their class. He was in favor of a caste system, which is one of the major disagreements I have with him. His traditionalism doesn't really come from the idea that the traditions are "good", but that a traditional society has a population that is spiritually and psychologically unpolluted, and that functions much better on account of it. Another major disagreement I have with Evola is that his conception of race was not scientific; he rejected the "scientific racialism" of the day in favor of racial mysticism. Racial mysticism may have some value, but the objective classification of race is indeed scientific. One of the main reasons Evola is so popular with Neoreaction is his disdain for and rejection of the French Revolution; a common theme within NRx.

[wizardwatson]

Pretty much Nazi with less emphasis on nationalism and more emphasis on socialism.

Still a Jew hatin' elitist. Traditionalism itself is a racist philosophy.

So pretty much another whiner that says societies ills are because we have to kill the other guy that's causing all the problems instead of realizing that God curses and blesses based on whether or not we follow His laws..

This is the bible of the Traditionalist/Nazi from what I've heard:

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Pretty much Nazi with less emphasis on nationalism and more emphasis on socialism.

Evola was not - in any sense - a socialist.

[wizardwatson]

Evola was not - in any sense - a socialist.

Well, I would love to disagree with you this fine morning, but we've already established that philosophically you choose not to be pinned down with the burdensome chains of common word definitions.

You're too "pro-freedom" to be shackled with the burden of not being able to change the definition of a word when you are losing an argument.

Be free!

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Well, I would love to disagree with you this fine morning, but we've already established that philosophically you choose not to be pinned down with the burdensome chains of common word definitions.

You're too "pro-freedom" to be shackled with the burden of not being able to change the definition of a word when you are losing an argument.

Be free!

I never changed the definition of any word.

The simple fact is Evola was not a socialist. He did not support a socialist economy, he certainly ​didn't support egalitarianism, and he believed in absolutely nothing that socialists believe. That's just a fact. You've never read his writings.

[wizardwatson]

Paleo's quote calling an 8 year member a liar:

I never changed the definition of any word.

The simple fact is Evola was not a socialist. He did not support a socialist economy, he certainly ​didn't support egalitarianism, and he believed in absolutely nothing that socialists believe. That's just a fact. You've never read his writings.

Stormfront's giant Julius Evola quote thread: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t953402/

From here, you can get an excellent view of my foot.

Hahahahahahah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETTsJggQl3I

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Paleo's quote calling an 8 year member a liar:





Stormfront's giant Julius Evola quote thread: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t953402/

I never said you were a liar. Reading some quotes is not reading his books. He still wasn't a socialist. I've never seen someone so dumb, so uninformed, and yet so enamored with himself.

[wizardwatson]

I never said you were a liar. Reading some quotes is not reading his books. He still wasn't a socialist. I've never seen someone so dumb, so uninformed, and yet so enamored with himself.

What would be the purpose of reading the works of a man whose fanboys are people that post like you? Tree by it's fruits.

No, I've never read a complete work of his. I've never watched gay porn either.

But you're lying saying that I said he's socialist. All I said was that through the Nazi lens, there's less emphasis on the nationalist dynamic. I'm saying he's right of fascist race-hater Nazi-esque.

All you have to do is put into words how he is "good" and I will, if I decide to bless the thread, tear that apart. You can try to bait me all you want, my intent is not dependent upon your weak and transparent attempts to manipulate.

My primary purpose, was simply to come into the thread and make sure I labeled it properly. Put my seal of disapproval on it. I can't have racist threads just float on down the river without making it known to the casual reader what the substance of it is and give the Nazi element around here power.

Now that I can't abide.

I like my threads in uniform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj6ikN2O364

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't spout off about things I haven't read about extensively.

Pretty much Nazi with less emphasis on nationalism and more emphasis on socialism.

But you're lying saying that I said he's socialist. All I said was that through the Nazi lens, there's less emphasis on the socialist dynamic.

You're an idiot. Tree by its fruits, and all. He's not a socialist, there is no emphasis on socialism in Evola's work. You are utterly uninformed.

[wizardwatson]

I don't spout off about things I haven't read about extensively.





[/COLOR]You're an idiot. Tree by its fruits, and all. He's not a socialist, there is no emphasis on socialism in Evola's work. You are utterly uninformed.

So what? All that means, is that when whenever a true debate is necessary that needs to go beyond the simple and obvious comparison to fascism and racism that it clearly points to, I should keep in mind that you have more defensive points against arguments that put it in a socialist light.

It's not my job on a pro-liberty website forum to establish that the theories of writers associated with fascism, or as you call it "Traditionalism", which is the fancy word for racially segregated societies, are pro-liberty.

You don't just get to come in here and go "wah wah, I want Julius to be pro-liberty please teach me how to do it by arguing with me!"

You are a racist, and a rude and disrespectful user. You harass women and call people vulgar and sexually explicit names. I owe you nothing.

#sorrynotsorry

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

For $#@!'s sake, I never said Evola was pro-liberty. You are the single stupidest person I have ever interacted with on RPF, which says a lot.

[wizardwatson]

For $#@!'s sake, I never said Evola was pro-liberty. You are the single stupidest person I have ever interacted with on RPF, which says a lot.

Dude, no joke, I was LITERALLY just thinking to make that quote my signature. Coming from you it's like a Purple Heart.

[wizardwatson]

For $#@!'s sake, I never said Evola was pro-liberty. You are the single stupidest person I have ever interacted with on RPF, which says a lot.

Tell you what. Since you were so nice to give me such an outstanding recommendation, I'll make you a deal.

If you give your life to Christ and repent, I will read a Julius Evola book of your choosing assuming it's not some everlasting compendium. I'm sure you'd pick a good one, though.

[Ronin Truth]

Julius Evola philosophy
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...30.cqiitBta32U

[r3volution 3.0]

Baron Julius Evola believed that civilization degenerates in cyclical stages, somewhat similar to Oswald Spengler. Rule by divine kings, rule by a warrior aristocracy, rule by merchants and finally rule by plebeians. Democracy most encapsulates the latter most stage. He believed that modernity had separated man, and - by extension - civilization from the metaphysical, the divine. He believed that both communism and capitalism (more accurately described as consumerism) lead to a ravenous materialism, one that destroys traditional culture, resulting in an atomistic civilization, one where people are separated from their communities, their neighbors, their race and their class. He was in favor of a caste system, which is one of the major disagreements I have with him. His traditionalism doesn't really come from the idea that the traditions are "good", but that a traditional society has a population that is spiritually and psychologically unpolluted, and that functions much better on account of it. Another major disagreement I have with Evola is that his conception of race was not scientific; he rejected the "scientific racialism" of the day in favor of racial mysticism. Racial mysticism may have some value, but the objective classification of race is indeed scientific. One of the main reasons Evola is so popular with Neoreaction is his disdain for and rejection of the French Revolution; a common theme within NRx.

Thanks Paleo.

What I'm trying to do is decide whether his ideas relate closely enough to my own present interests for it to be worth my time to really get into his writings. If I had infinite time, I'd undoubtedly read him; but, alas, time too is a scarce resources. So, A couple additional questions:

1. In general, is his style of argument rational (conclusions logically following from premises) or emotional-romantic-poetical-mystical? In other words, does his work as a whole more resemble Mises or Nietzsche? You mentioned Spengler, so I guess he's more in the Nietzsche camp? Incidentally, I own Decline of the West and most of Nietzsche's works, so I'm not disparaging that school of thought; but nor would I consult them in trying to answer the question "what form of political organization is most amenable to libertarianism?" which is the question that interests me.

2. How does his case for monarchy relate to the libertarian case (i.e. monarchy is good because a monarchical government tends to be smaller, more amenable to laissez faire, ala Hoppe)? Since you describe him as an anti-capitalist (of the pre-modern type rather than the socialist type), and also a monarchist. does that mean he thinks that monarchy actually discourages laissez faire, is incompatible with it in some way?

3. Does he think that monarchy requires/promotes the caste system (or is he just in favor of a monarchy + caste system, not arguing that they necessarily coincide)?

Finally, if I'm only going to read one work of his, which should I read (could be a chapter of a larger work)?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

1. In general, is his style of argument rational (conclusions logically following from premises) or emotional-romantic-poetical-mystical? In other words, does his work as a whole more resemble Mises or Nietzsche? You mentioned Spengler, so I guess he's more in the Nietzsche camp? Incidentally, I own Decline of the West and most of Nietzsche's works, so I'm not disparaging that school of thought; but nor would I consult them in trying to answer the question "what form of political organization is most amenable to libertarianism?" which is the question that interests me.

Definitely more along the lines of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a big influence on Evola in his ideologically formative years after World War I, though Evola eventually moved in a much different direction throughout his life.

2. How does his case for monarchy relate to the libertarian case (i.e. monarchy is good because a monarchical government tends to be smaller, more amenable to laissez faire, ala Hoppe)? Since you describe him as an anti-capitalist (of the pre-modern type rather than the socialist type), and also a monarchist. does that mean he thinks that monarchy actually discourages laissez faire, is incompatible with it in some way?

It has very little, if anything, to do with the Hoppean case for monarchy, or other, similar ideas. One of Evola's biggest problems is that he didn't understand the way markets work, and was pretty ignorant of economics as a whole. How he thought there could be a return to a traditional caste system after the industrial revolution is beyond me. One of the great things about Neoeaction is that the good parts of Evola's philosophy can be synthesized with sound, capitalist economics to make an actually workable system. Long live the Hegelian dialectic!

3. Does he think that monarchy requires/promotes the caste system (or is he just in favor of a monarchy + caste system, not arguing that they necessarily coincide)?

His vision of a divine king (meaning the traditional "golden age") would require a caste system. Evola believed that as civilization moved away from tradition, these base, materialistic, modern economic systems are what emerged. Again, I think the root of this comes from his lack of knowledge of economics. Caste systems existed because it was a good way to organize economies when production was so low, but the time for it has passed. There's a difference between something that is ancient that still has value that modernity overlooks, and something that is truly antiquated. A caste system is an example of something antiquated. If you mentally replace the word "capitalism" with "consumerism" in his writings, they become far more apt, and more descriptive of the modernity.

Finally, if I'm only going to read one work of his, which should I read (could be a chapter of a larger work)?

Definitely Revolt Against the Modern World; that's his magnum opus. Ride the Tiger is more about living under modernity, and I haven't read Men Among the Ruins yet.