Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Julius Evola. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I've delete the link to the bebsite of the Julius Evola Foundation. The domain has been acquired from a society that is taken care of publicity. The society uses the notoriety of Julius Evola in order to attract visitors. The Foundation at the moment does not have a domain. Information about Foundation are here (in italian).

I would'nt say Evola was an esotericist author. He was deeply in influenced by esotericism, but (with some exceptions) he didn't write esoteric books as such. Evolas field of writing was more philosophy, cultural studies, «Kulturkritik» and so on. --62.203.1.120 07:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm confused, but could someone explain how it's possible to be a fascist and a neofascist at the same time? Neofascism, as I understand it, is a modern movement that consciously adheres to a sort of "reborn" Nazi ideology &c, and as such it's rather hard to see how it could apply to someone who was contemporary with the original movement. Cantara 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He lived a long life and intersected both Italian Fascism and modern Neo-Fascism. Not only that, he called himself an anti-anti-Fascist. By amplifying the article and placing what had already been written into chronological order, i think the use of these terms is now clearer. Catherineyronwode 02:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that this page has entirely too much information and speculation about Evola's politics. Out of his many books only two deal explicitly with politics (one of which advocates apolitea). He is far more concerned with metaphysics and symbolism--with determining the "way" or various "ways" that men can follow in order to reach enlightenment in our age "the Kali Yuga". While his politics are important, they are primarily important in relation to his main ideas or to his biography respectively. I am therefore advocating rewriting this page to have biography section separate from a section about Evola's views, and to divide up the work on politics present on the page now into those two sections. I believe that this will give a clearer idea of who Evola was and at the same time conform better to wikipedia's prefered format for other important thinkers. If anyone has any objections or suggestions please let me know.

The above author did not sign his or her name. My watchlist indicates the comment is by User:Lholder -- who does not have a personal page and whose contributions consist almost entirely of articles about fascists and neo-Nazis, including music bands that use such imagery.

i have moved the portion on sex magic (from "Early Years") and the portion on political theory (from "Politics") into the section on "Philosophy" and renamd it "Occult Philosophy." This is not what Lholder proposed, but it preserved the flow of the article.

I suggest that if Lholder has any information to add about Evola's belief in the Kali Yuga, he or she should simply add it.

I am very wary of seeing this article "rewritten" by the very person who contributed so heavily to its former state of fascist apologetics. When i found it, it was a puff piece empty of references to what Evola actually said about sex magic (the rape quote) or about Aryanism (the Hyperborean Nordic Altantean material), and consisted of little more than a string of unidentified names and a list of book titles that lead nowhere but to stub pages consisting of titles only.

All articles about fascists and anti-Semites at WP seem to be contested ground, with the pro-fascist and anti-Semitic apologists consistently softening the articles.

• Sometimes the fascist apologists claim that there are excuses for fascistic beliefs (see the Mircea Eliade article and talk pages -- "he was young, he wouldn't have done this all his life, forgive him his youthful indescretions" blah blah blah).
• Sometimes the fascist apologists divert attention from the information by lower-casing the word "fascist" (even when, as in Evola's case, the man was a member of the Italian Fascist party -- and, yes, i went through and upper-cased it).
• Sometimes the fascist apologists try to downplay fascism and anti-Semitism in the biographies of those they admire by mislabelling factual data as "speculation" (see the above comment by Lholder, claiming that this page "has entirely too much ... speculation").
• Sometimes the fascist apologists rewrite history by using oddly skewed language (as in h Evola article, which, when i found it, after many edits and revisions by Lholder, contained this unusual statement: "He [Evola] was one of the first people to greet Mussolini after his rescue from prison. " Mussolini's "rescue from prison"? A war criminal's "rescue from prison"?? Can you say "slightly biased"? Sure you can.)
• Sometimes the fascist apologists whine and complain that the mention of the person's politics is "irellevant to his scholorship" (see Eliade again), even when fascist philosophy can be demonstrated to permeate the published writings (as in the case of Evola).
• Sometimes the fascist apologists seek to claim great influence for fascistic authors after death. (This was the case in the Evola article; as i found it, world-wide influence was claimed, even though most of the man's works are not available in English translation and this is the English language Wiki; i added a short graph explaining that he was not popular with US occultists and was rewarded by anonymous vandalism that referred to the US as "the philo-Semitic US").
• Sometimes the fascist apologists seek to remove from biographies of Nazi occultists any mention of commonly shared beliefs that might link them together, hoping to present each indiviidual in the best light, not kooky-seeming, and diminishing a reader's ability to learn about and grasp the shared concepts that distinguish Nazi occultists from other occultists (an egregious example, relevant to this discussion, occurred right here in the Evola article: earlier versions contained the line "Evola believed in a race of Hyperborean "nordic" people from the North Pole who had a crucial hand in the founding of Atlantis" -- but in the edit of 22:19, December 1, 2005 this was removed, and the only comment left explaining the removal was "updated and corrected text" (an untrue comment , since the data WAS correct) -- and the person who took out this important (and factually verifiable) information? ... why, none other than user:Lholder, of course! (how did you guess?) -- and, oh, yes, i reinstated the data).

This article may benefit from revision, but i for one do not like the idea of Lholder rewriting it. I oppose it. I think that if Lholder wishes to bring forth more of what he or she considers interesting about Evola's occultism, and thus restore balance to the piece, that would be great. But an editor who already has REMOVED material about Evola's "nordic" occultism and who has let the Mussolini "rescue from prison" line stand, who has no user page, who writes almost exclusvely about fascists and Neo-Nazis, and who says that this article "has entirely too much information and speculation about Evola's politics" is not someone i want to entrust with rewriting the article.

Catherineyronwode 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of fascist apologetics corrupting the NPOV of articles needs to be addressed here on Wilipedia. There does seem to be periodic efforts to sanitize certain entries by removing references to fascist, Nazi, antisemitic, Aryanist, and white supremacist ideological leanings or activities. we need to strive to be fair in writing entries, but we should not allow apologists for fascism and racism to sanitize entries.--Cberlet 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I am most emphatically NOT an apoligist for Fascism, and in fact all the examples you cited were not written by me, and I would agree 100% with your assesment of them. I write about Fascism because it is one of my interests in an intellectual way. I still contend that Evola is a complicated figure, whose importance is not primarily his connection to Fascism, but in his other works. I also believe, however that his connection to Fascism is important, but should not be overstated. For instance he was NOT a member of the Fascist party as you contend, and in fact was vehemently against many of its policies. My criticism was mostly with a lack of balance and that, in fact, many are too quick to label Evola a Fascist and leave it at that, when in fact, his relationship with Fascism is not so clear cut. I would repeat again that none of the edits that so concern you were, in fact mine, and that I agree with you that that sort of vandalism should be avoided. I only wish to make the Evola page more informative and balance about this challenging writer. Furthermore I believe that much of what is on this page is in fact speculation, for instance the comment aobut Evola "moving deeper into politics" with his introduction to the Protocols of the Elder's of Zion. I for one, have never read that introduction, and have no opinion about its significance to Evola's work. I would, however, say that a work like the Protocols, is inconsistent with Evola's view on race, an entry for which I am writing now. If anyone has any ideas rather than insinuations like "moving deeper into politics" about this point I would welcome work on it.

Finally I would advise you to consider more carefully labeling someone you know nothing about a "Fascist apologist" simply because he is interested in Fascism. There is a world of difference. I will also put up a personal page, if that would help you to resist ad hominem attacks on me, but I don't see how that is relevant. I am also relatively new to wikipedia and occassionally make mistakes, like not signing my name on this talk page, and I ask for patience and forgiveness. --Lholder 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a Biography section that should exemplify what I intended to say in my first comment. For the moment it makes the rest of the page feel even more disorganized than it was before, but I am working on a section about his philosophy, political and otherwise that will hopefully rectify the problem. Again, if anything in what I have written comes accross as an apology for Fascism, please change it, I intend no such thing. --Lholder 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

One more note, I hope that I haven't removed any pertinent information from the page, if I have, please reinsert it, but I think that the format is better, and more organized this way.--Lholder 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a long section on Evola's philosophy, in which I include, I believe all of the information about it that was previously on the page. As you can see I have not yet written the section on politics or finished consolidating the section on "post war writings", but it is close to bed time now so I will do it tomorrow. As you can see the section on sex magic is very short (I have not yet read his book "The Yoga of Power") so if anyone who has read it can add more.... The section on the doctrine of awakening is likewise short, I am reading that book now. Furthermore the bit about the Hyperborean Nordic Aryan race I just copied from what was on the page already. I will reread the relevant portions of "Revolt Against the Modern World" in order to expand it, but whoever wrote it at first seemed to have a different source, what is that source, does anyone know? --Lholder 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see you have put a lot of work into your rewrites. I can see that you now have a user page as well. Thanks for both. The latter makes it easier to see you as a member of WP and not a "drive by". As for the former, i will wait until you are finished with your rewrites before commenting further, but i can tell you that i already see the use of special "sanitized" and "softened" language, treating with kid gloves things which are actually harsh and vicious. There is also evidence of burying important material inside long 'graphs, and i shall pull some of that out of entombment when it is my turn to run through the material. I suggest that a good source *in English* for the Hyperborean "Nordic" material you were questioning is Jocelyn Godwin's "Arktos". Thanks for all the time you've put into this piece. We still have serious, serious disagreements, but courtesy should allow us to reach a compromise. Time for bed here, too... catch you later. Catherineyronwode 05:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what specifically you find to be "sanitized" or "softened" so that I can avoid it in the future. I find that what I have written, is, on the contrary, balanced between what I would call "Evola's view of himself" and "the critics view of Evola." If I give EITHER view too much weight, I would be more than happy to see it changed. I think, however, that in an article on Evola, his "view of himself" should come first, even if its not the one given the most weight. If placing the criticism of Evola after his "view of himself" causes the criticism to be "buried... inside long graphs" maybe the page should have a separate section for criticism, or contrary viewpoints about Evola's work so that it can be featured more prominently.

I myself have not read the Godwin book, and would like to see the single line reference to it, which I find vague and uninformative, expanded and explained so that someone, ignorant as I am about the subject, can understand it.

I thank you for your courtesy in your latest response and I hope that in the future we can keep debate about this page civil and keep the focus on making it a better entry rather than attacking eachother. --lholder 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the recent rewrite by lholder to have distanced Evola from the more serious published criticism of him. This may not be the intent, but the outcome is to sanitize this entry in an way that serves as an apologia for Evola's racist and antisemitic views. To describe the "Protocols" as "the anti-semitic Russian propaganda essay" is a perfect excample. The Protocols are a crude and vicious antisemitic forgery used by the Nazis to whip up hatred of Jews as handy scapegoats; and to justify genocide against the Jews of Europe. It is my understanding that Evola was researching in the Freemasonry archives to pursue this conspiracist line of research into alleged secret societies. The Protocols claim that the (nonexistant) Jewish secret council manipulated the Freemasons. There is a reason that Evola is a hero to some current neonazis. Evola was clearly a complicated intellectual--he was also an ally of the Nazis and promoted many of their core themes. Just because Evola used big words and wrote smooth text should not distract us from his core beliefs: racist, antisemitic, and a tactical pro-Nazi as a defense against egalitarianism and collectivism.--Cberlet 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the line about the "Protocols," I copied it word for word from what was already on the page, precisely in order to avoid accusations of sanitizing what has been written. If you can think of a better way to phrase it go ahead. As I said before I know nothing about Evola's work on that document (the reprehensible significance of which I understand) so I would appreciate it if someone who does would expand the section.

I also would like to point out that I have not read "the more serious published criticism" of Evola. My focus on writing this page is trying to explain what his ideas were. If someone else wants to write about the criticism they are welcome to. I do not feel that I should be held responsible for writing something that I know nothing about. In general I find that the criticism of me on this talk page concerns no so much what I write, but what I don't write. I should not be held responsible for information I don't have. If you have it write it yourself.--lholder 10:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have finished my work on "major reformatting" so if you have been waiting for me do so before you edit it in order to find a better sense of balance please do now.--lholder 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To describe the "Protocols" as "the anti-semitic Russian propaganda essay, is fine by me. This is an opinion, very "politically correct", leaving me with things to ponder and investigate further. To describe the Protocols as "a crude and vicious antisemitic forgery used by the Nazis to whip up hatred of Jews as handy scapegoats; and to justify genocide against the Jews of Europe" is not an opinion. It is YOUR opinion Cberlet, that straightforwardly displays a partial and fanatic person, who has already made up his mind about things BUT does not allow ME to make up my OWN!!!I wanted to know about Evola' s theories, cause I came across some philosophical issues that interested me and decided to google his name. Huh! Wikipedia comes up first. Ok... BUT.... I kept in mind that I should look at the "discussion" first, to check if any arguments have come up...Completely unsurprised, I found people who have appointed themselves as "crusaders", cornering a man, asking him to change his truth and his opinion, because THEY KNOW BETTER. I am so stuffed with that. You people would accept something only if it was in accordance with what YOU believe. If Evola was a fascist as you so fondly and passionately proclaim, what does that make of you then? Happened that before here, in wikipedia. Or better, happens all the time. Sanitized(sic) Antifa-scists hunting down articles written by what THEY believe crypto fascists, accusing them and demanding of them to re-write, re- arrange, correct or explain themselves. If THAT is your truth, you can have it. So disgusted by people like you. I'll find another source to get my information, other than this bastardized parody of open mindedness and disgraceful, to knowledgeable individuals who can think for themselves, """political correctness""". Sanitize yourselves first.User:Ixwp 19:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this sentence curious: "He expressed disillusionment with the idea that a revolution and subsequent return to a more enlightened state of civilization was possible, and his political views took on a Sorelian flavor." Is the disillusionment that Evola felt Sorelian (as the sentence implies now) or is his idea of revolution and subsequent return Sorelian? I know nothing about Sorel, and I find the reference unclear. If someone who does know could clarify it, that would be helpful.--lholder 10:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the "Sorelian" descriptor based on this passage in the Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890: "Increasingly his reaction to a world of 'urban jungles', socialist tendencies and expanding democracy was one of apoliteia and anarcho-nihilist rejection; the greatest hope lay in a resurrection of a multinational elite Waffen-SS in defense of the West (he had called the SS 'a biological and spiritual elite of the Third Reich on a model with the [medieval] Teutonic Order'). The late Sorelian turn of Evola's thought ('it is not a question of contesting and polemicizing but of blowing everything up') was reflected in the young Milanese neo-fascist slogan, 'Sorel, Evola, Drieu la Rochelle'." —Morning star 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel as though a lot of the contention about this page could be solved if there were a section dealing exclusively with criticisms of Evola and/or a section on his relationship to Neo-Nazi/Neo-Fascist groups. As I have indicated I do not feel I possess the knowledge to write such a section and I have just finished doing a lot of work and want to take a break. I merely offer it as a suggestion for dealing with the issues raised on this page.--lholder 10:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem, lholder, is that you felt comfortable to accomplish a major rewrite on a controversial figure, but then are upset when it is pointed out that the outcome is to sanitize the criticism. It is as if I decided to rewrite the page on Hitler and reformatted it to focus primarily on his ideas as expressed in his writings, and heralded his love of opera, painting, and dogs. I leave it to others to raise any criticisms...

You say "I should not be held responsible for information I don't have." That is not a very high standard for an editor of an encyclopedia, is it?

I also do not think that criticism in an entry should be limited to a segregated section of criticism.

It is not uncommon for editors to object to a major rewrite that only deals with one small slice of the larger topic. Criticism can be harsh here at Wikipedia and I apologize if I am coming across as too hard on your work, which clearly involved much time and energy. But it would be nice if you would accept some responsibility for the outcome of your edits, which is to have softened the criticism of Evola in a way that unbalances the entry and strays from an NPOV approach.--Cberlet 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think adding a section that deals with the subject matter of the bulk of an author's work is "one small slice of the larger topic." And your analogy to Hitler is misleading. The main historical importance of Hitler is the Nazi party, WWII and genocide and clearly NOT his "love of opera, painting and dogs." The primary importance of Evola is either his esoteric writing or his relationship to Fascism. Before my edit the page was almost exclusively about the latter. Now it is approximately half-and-half. If adding information about Evola's esoteric writing has the effect of de-emphasizing his relationship to Fascism, that is, I think, only appropriate considering that it is only half of the story. That said, I do not believe that the page should in any way "sanitize" Evola's relationship to Fascism, although it should be honest about it. I would also like to add that almost none of what is in my edit concerning Fascism was written by me, but was instead consolidated into a better (in my opinion) format. Futhermore I think that any talk of sanitization is a mischaracterizion of what I have done, as I have harldy altered a word of what was said about his relationship to Fascism, I have instead reformatted the page and added a section that deals with what is arguably Evola's most significant contribution--his writing.

I want to reiterate that Evola's ideas are in NO WAY "one small slice of the topic" although they are clearly not the whole story. --lholder 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just felt the need to say that as a student of Evola, I agree with Lholder here. The vast bulk of Evola's writings were on esoteric topics. To define him as a fascist or as a Nazi is ridiculous. Should the Ezra Pound page be rewritten to focus primarily on his support of fascism? Of course not. Evola was never a member of either the Nazi or Fascist party. In fact, the Fascists had him under serious investigation due to anti-fascist writings, and the Nazis did also for the same reasons. He undoubtedly tried to use both governments for his own purposes, and failed in trying to do so. He was, first and foremost, a Traditionalist writer. It seems that perhaps many who are editing this page are operating on hearsay about Evola rather than on the man’s own writings. Simply read Men Amongst the Ruins, for example, and you will see him there telling the neo-fascists to give it up and attempt toward a self-realization through spiritual methods. He advocates an apolitical stance. It aggravates me when an astounding intellectual is endlessly surrounded by talk of fascism, merely because of the political over-sensitivity of people.

A final note: a comparison of Evola with Hitler is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Evola was never a member of any political party, and got himself into trouble by criticizing anti-Semitism, specifically his statement that there were Jews who better exhibited the qualities that the Nazis upheld than many Germans themselves. As it stands now, this page is seriously biased, and not in the direction of “softening.” I find that this page is seriously lacking in the NPOV department, and hopefully I will soon have the time to correct some of this erroneous information, and with better sources than are currently listed.Spacelord 10:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Spacelord wrote: "He advocates an apolitical stance."

Evola may seem to have been "apolitical" to you, but is not held as such by others.

Anti-Semitism, as Evola practiced it, was political. For instance, he wrote an introduction to -- and PUBLISHED -- an Italian edition of the highly political and anti-Semitic tract the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Note the word "published." This word WAS on the page, prior to rewrites by an Evola supporter, who deleted it. I have reinstated it.

You yourself made a deletion of the "Category:anti-Semitic people" with a comment line that Evola was "not anti-Semitic." The cat has been reinstated, along with a link to an article by Umbrto Eco, an Italian intellectual in his own right, who discusses Evola's anti-Semitism and his publication of the "Protocols." I have also inserted direct quotes from Evola that leave no doubt that he was not only anti-Semitic.

You took out the mention of Miguel Serrano as a follower of Evola, yet on the Serrano page, Evola is listed as Serrano's greatest influence. I reinserted the Serrano mention, of course.

He wrote for a Fascist journal. He published the "Protocols" in italy. These are political acts. He was an influence on Miguel Serrano; this belongs in the section on who he influenced.

Please understand that Evola is never going to be seen as apolitical. He wrote for the Fascists (without joining the party). He renounced Dadaism, an art moovement to which he had belonged, on the grounds that its founder was a Jew. He published an Italian edition of the most notorious anti-Semitic tract of all time. He personally greeted Musolini when the Nazi's broke the latter out of jail. When italy surrended, he moved to Nazi Germany. These are all political acts.

Cordially, Catherineyronwode 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the first time I read it on the discussions of Wikipedia: It is true Evola wrote an introduction to the italian translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion but what makes you state he "PUBLISHED" it? what is your source? For what I know the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were published in Italy in various versions between 1921 and 1937 by "La Vita Italiana" edited and founded by Giovanni Preziosi. Preziosi is also cleary pointed out in the front page of the book as the editor, and the introduction of Evola (if I remember well) was wrote for the last reprint (1937). I deleted the verb "published" again, since it states something incorrect.

Ialkarn 18:50, 12 August 2007

Dadaism was one of the various youthful Evola's experiences, it was part of his pre-traditional period where individualism was still strong in him, he abbandoned it like many other individiualistic orienteded paths. This isn't a free interpretation but what Evola stated himself in his spiritual biography "Il cammino del Cinabro" and in various interviews released in the last part of his life.

Catherineyronwode wrote: "He renounced Dadaism, an art movement to which he had belonged, on the grounds that its founder was a Jew"

To know Evola "discovered" his friend Tzara as jew (the founder of Dadaism),like it was some sort of secret in the anti-semitic post bellic Europe (I mean ww1), sounds quite bizarre. According with the previous sentence, when he wrote very enthusiastic and positive reviews about the novels of Gustav Meyrink and the ebraic esoteric pieces of Gershom Sholem, both jews, he should have ignored the truth about their origins too, otherwise he wouldn't have wrote such enthusiastic critics. If Miss Catherineyronwode have a valid source to support her unusual statement I believe everyone here would be very interested to hear about it.

Ialkarn 22:55, 8 october 2007

Is this really an NPOV lead concerning Evola?

"Julius Evola born Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola, aka Baron Giulio (May 19, 1898-June 11, 1974), was a controversial Italian esotericist and occult author, who wrote prolifically on matters political, philosophical, historical, racial, and religious from a Traditionalist point of view."

No mention of white supremacy, antisemitism, flirtations with fascism, ally of the Nazis, his role as a hero to post WWII neofascits and neonazis?

• Hilter: political leader, writer, painter, opera lover, liked dogs...

We can do better.--Cberlet 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the information you requested to the lead.--Lholder 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Much, much better, thank you. A more well-rounded lead. I tweaked some language and gave Evola his due as a leading intellectual voice in some esoteric circles. I will try to dig up some more cites and quotes. The whole article is much improved and more detailed.--Cberlet 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As i promised i would yesterday, i have gone through the entire Lholder /Cberlet version of the Evola page, pulling out buried leads, giving sex magic its own subhead, changing the mixed past and present tenses to a standard past tense (he's dead), and condensing the many redundancies that had resulted from the incorporation of previous versions. I have also taken the rather radical step of moving Lholder's interesting but too-lengthy description of Evola's Traditionalism to the Traditional School page, where it fits rather nicely. I also hope that the Radical traditionalism page gets merged into Traditional School page, as has been suggested, for it is now somewhat of an orphan. I won't be doing that latter task myself, though i will leave a vote for it on the relevant pages. Catherineyronwode 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I now think that this page (while it of course needs more work, what page doesn't) is a page I can get behind as an accurate representation of Evola's life and work. --Lholder 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well. my adenaline level is returning to normal and i am glad that you were amenable to compromise. I think the article was greatly improved by your additions, by Chip Berlet's uncompromising insistence on keeping major topics in the lead and not buried, and (i hope) by my copy-editing. I stand corrected, by the way on the mistake i made, saying Evola was a member of the Fascist Party; luckily that was just my poor memory of what i'd read on the page, and was never ON the page itself. I am grateful for everyone's cooperation. I hope to return now to my own interests -- occultism and folklore -- but this excursion into fascism has left me with a new pile of interesting pages on my watchlist. :-) Catherineyronwode 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is everyone single one of Evola's works an article right now? Most of the pages are simply translations of the titles into English. Suggest redirecting to Evola and expounding upon the major works. Isopropyl 01:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A small contribution to the debate on this subject: in the last pages of the 1972 edition of Il Mistero del Graal (Rome, Edizioni Mediterranee), Evola states that the issue of authenticity or falsity of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are an "open question" and that such "document" has the value of a "symptom". He also says that he saw a striking similarity between the conspiratory plan laid out in the "Protocols" and the events of contemporary history. I won't translate those entire pages here, but as a whole it seems clear that, at least by 1972, such "similarity" was the main or only point of interest of the "Protocols" for him, and not the identification of the Jews as the culprits of it. Unfortunately I don't have the English translation of the book at hand.

I'm not a specialist on Evola and have read only a few of his books, but I assume that his opinion on the "Protocols" and on the role of the Jews may have changed somewhat over time. Perhaps an overview of this development could be an intresting addition to the main page.

Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of this seems like the writing of a breathless fan. "Evola's uncomparable [sic] vast knowledge of ancient and modern texts…", "…he expounds according to the ancient texts…" (note the assumption that he has followed and understood them correctly, not "…he expounds that according to the ancient texts…"), "Evola reveals in the Golden Age…" ("reveals!"), etc. It's also not very well written.

I know next to nothing about the topic, so I'm not the one to edit this, but I would hope that those working on the article will have a look at this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As to bias, we should document Evola just like some strange, alien plant previously unknown to biology instead of taking a simplistic pro or anti perspective.

The article is indeed very badly written and chaotically organized. A few revisions ago however the page was half-decent, but apparently some non-English speaker thought he had the supreme right to mutilate the half-decent version and now the page is quite mediocre. Eventually, I will extensively rework the article *in accordance with proper English grammar and scholarly standards*.

Hi 172.150.22.191, go ahead and improve this article *in accordance with proper English grammar and scholarly standards* that's good! But for now you've not shown your full potential I guess because your last edit was more about erasing info about Evola. Please do not hesitate to explain why you're doing it. Style is important but without the proper content it isn't anything but beautiful empty talk.

Also I've read his book about 'The Metaphysics of Sex' and from what I remember Evola does explicitly compare homosexuality to sex at the "level of masturbating exchange in sexual exstasis". Too bad the quote gave no page reference, but I'll check when time permits. The article should not make Evola more apealing or hide some of his positions.

Let's indeed try and expose what he says as clearly as possible without pushing one way or the other. Keep us updated on your english efforts!

Evola's not a modernist. That's not a philosophical failing. His fairly mild opposition to homosexuality by contemporary standards (and he does oppose it somewhat, though either much more or much less than you'd think - for his time he may as well have put out a rainbow flag) is on p62-65 of the English translation. He opposes the carnality of character implicit in pederasty as practice and he exposes homosexuality as metaphysically incompatible with the Platonic myth of the hermaphrodite (and he's right - it quite plainly is). But, if you read on, it turns out Evola's about 5 decades ahead of Butler in most of his reasoning, if not his conclusions. Evola actually excuses "natural" homosexuality, "homosexuality of intermediate forms" and seems to be completely fine with experimental bisexuality. His concept of the homosexuality of intermediate forms is rather interesting. Anyway, the quote you mention is a bit out of context since the sentence before he refers to how base most modern hetersexual unions are. The paragraph after compares modern homosexuality to greek bisexuality (and, yes, unlike most authors, he gets the difference). He mostly opposes the displacement of Eros in homosexuality as a choice, and views that as a pathology while not viewing "natural" or homosexuality of intermediate forms as such. Guinness4life (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Henry Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth (trans. Nancy Pearson, Princeton University Press, 1989, pps. 71-72).

"...That is why the progression, which this mode of thought makes it possible for us to conceive, is not a horizontal linear evolution, but an ascent from cycle to cycle, from one octave to a higher octave. A few pages from the same Shaikh, which have been translated here, illustrate this. The spiritual history of humanity since Adam is the cycle of prophecy following the cycle of cosmogony; but though the former follows in the train of the latter, it is in the nature of a reversion, a return and reascent to the pleroma. This has a gnostic flavor to be sure, but that is exactly what it means to 'see things in Hurqalya.' It means to see man and his world essentially in a vertical direction. The Orient-origin, which orients and magnetizes the return and reascent, is the celestial pole, the cosmic North, the 'emerald rock' at the summit of the cosmic mountain of Qaf, in the very place where the world of Hurqalya begins; so it is not a region situated East on the maps, not even those old maps that place the East at the top, in place of the North. The meaning of man and the meaning of his world are conferred upon them by this polar dimension, and not by a linear, horizontal and one-dimensional evolution, that famous 'sense of history' which nowadays has been taken for granted, even though the terms of reference on which it is based remain entirely hypothetical.

Moreover, the paradise of Yima in which are preserved the most beautiful of beings who will repopulate a transfigured world, namely, the Var that preserves the seed of the resurrection bodies, is situated in the North. The Earth of Light, the Terra Lucida of Manicheism, like that of Mazdeism [Zoroastrianism], is also situated in the direction of the cosmic North. In the same way, according to the mystic Abd al-Karim Jili, the 'earth of the souls' is a region in the far North, the only one not to have been affected by the consequences of the fall of Adam. It is the abode of the 'men of the Invisible,' ruled by the mysterious prophet Khizr (Khadir). A characteristic feature is that its light is that of the 'midnight sun,' since the evening prayer is unknown there, dawn rising before the sun has set. And here it might be useful to look at all the symbols that converge toward the paradise of the North, the souls' Earth of Light and castle of the Grail...."

Basically everything is referenced. All of Evola's books are available at popular bookstores and libraries in the Anglo-Atlantic world. Outside books (e.g. Mussolini's Intellectuals) are heavily and formulaically cited. How is the page unreferenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.42.224 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs more in-text citations, and preferably more details in the citations, such as {{citequote}}, {{page number}}, {{cite book}}, etc. Listing only the title of his books, e.g., like this (Evola, Men Among the Ruins, 1953), simply won't cut it. Also, a controversial statement like this needs to be cited: Evola further held that Jewish people denigrated lofty "Aryan" ideals (of faith, loyalty, courage, devotion, and constancy) through a "corrosive irony" that ascribed every human activity to economic or sexual motives (à la Marx and Freud).[1] This article needs a lot more work. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also needs more secondary sources and less original research. Directly citing a book by the subject to support an argument is almost never appropriate in an encyclopedia article; rather, we ought to be citing the numerous scholars and biographers who have written on Evola, and summarize their arguments. --Delirium (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"we ought to be citing the numerous scholars and biographers who have written on Evola, and summarize their arguments". Honestly, there are virtually none. No one in the academy will touch Evola, despite the fact "Revolt Against the Modern World" is a masterpiece. Heidegger is fine though. Go figure that. AJ Gregor is generally good, but tends towards apology because of prevailing academic attitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

http://members.libreopinion.com/pe/observador/evola_nitoglia.htm

The above Spanish page has Gothic Dracula music set to a scary picture of Evola and an analysis. Is the page trying to link Evola's philosophy to a 'Draculean' way of being, a berserker-werewolf feudal-warrior lust for world-domination? Does anyone here read Spanish, what does the article say, and should it be included in the present version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

--In fact, an 'ideological' link between Bram Stoker's Dracula and Evola is interestingly quite manifest. The vampire-count in Stoker's novel sounds quite like Evola, espousing the sanguinary philosophy of a hardcore feudal-conservative warlord:

"We Szekelys have a right to be proud, for in our veins flows the blood of many brave races who fought as the lion fights, for lordship. Here, in the whirlpool of European races, the Ugric tribe bore down from Iceland the fighting spirit which Thor and Wodin game them, which their Berserkers displayed to such fell intent on the seaboards of Europe, aye, and of Asia and Africa too, till the peoples thought that the werewolves themselves had come. Here, too, when they came, they found the Huns, whose warlike fury had swept the earth like a living flame, till the dying peoples held that in their veins ran the blood of those old witches, who, expelled from Scythia had mated with the devils in the desert. Fools, fools! What devil or what witch was ever so great as Attila, whose blood is in these veins?" He held up his arms. "Is it a wonder that we were a conquering race, that we were proud, that when the Magyar, the Lombard, the Avar, the Bulgar, or the Turk poured his thousands on our frontiers, we drove them back? Is it strange that when Arpad and his legions swept through the Hungarian fatherland he found us here when he reached the frontier, that the Honfoglalas was completed there? And when the Hungarian flood swept eastward, the Szekelys were claimed as kindred by the victorious Magyars, and to us for centuries was trusted the guarding of the frontier of Turkeyland. Aye, and more than that, endless duty of the frontier guard, for as the Turks say, `water sleeps, and the enemy is sleepless.' Who more gladly than we throughout the Four Nations received the `bloody sword,' or at its warlike call flocked quicker to the standard of the King? When was redeemed that great shame of my nation, the shame of Cassova, when the flags of the Wallach and the Magyar went down beneath the Crescent? Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them! Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkeyland, who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! They said that he thought only of himself. Bah! What good are peasants without a leader? Where ends the war without a brain and heart to conduct it? Again, when, after the battle of Mohacs, we threw off the Hungarian yoke, we of the Dracula blood were amongst their leaders, for our spirit would not brook that we were not free. Ah, young sir, the Szekelys, and the Dracula as their heart's blood, their brains, and their swords, can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach. The warlike days are over. Blood is too precious a thing in these days of dishonourable peace, and the glories of the great races are as a tale that is told."

--Then there is Evola's admiration for the feudal Emperor Sigismund for his "taming" of the anarchy of Christianity, who initiated the "Order of the Dragon", of Catholic upper class imperial militants, of which the Orthodox-Catholic 'knight of the cross' Vlad the Impaler (i.e. the inspiration for Stoker's Dracula) was so proud to be a part of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.4.131 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More bizarreness: Evola is lovingly cited by Tracy Twyman, editor of Dagobert's Revenge, collaborator with Boyd Rice, in relation to her "Draconist" concept of racialist blood-victory and is apparently popular in these vampire-fascist circles...

Thttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_dragoncourt05.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.174.166 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

--More Dracula-Evola Insanity... At Evola's main Italian website, there is a whole series dedicated to explaining Dracula as a manifestation of an ideal Evolian warrior:

http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/draculaguerrierodiwotan.html

we are dealing with lucid psychopaths here in the Evolian pseudoaristocratic underground... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.57.212 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these seemingly "wacky", far-out, or "evil" ideas of Evola were quite popular only a few years ago.

Early (Judeo)Christian apocryphal writers and official theologians, in fact, interpreted the non-white physiotype as a falling away from the original Adamic state. The anthropological issue is probably esoterically encoded in the "Curse of Ham/Canaan" story in the Book of Genesis. "Ham" etymologically means in Semitic "to be hot" (hmm) and "black, dark" (hwm). A reliable Semiticist can confirm this etymology. The "Curse of Ham/Canaan" story thus serves to explain the socially-servile and degraded nature of the southern, darker-hued populations of the earth. The Church theologian Origen (185-254), refers to the degraded and "discolored" posterity of Ham (Homilies on Genesis 16.1) and describes the condition of being physically Negroid as a "hereditary defect" (Commentary to Song of Songs 2:1, 2:2). The early medieval Armenian work, The History of the Creation and Transgression of Adam, says of Eve: "Even though she had been stripped of the heavenly light, she was nonetheless beautiful, for her flesh was dazzling white like a pearl because she was newly created," etc., etc.

The esteemed Catholic Anne Catherine Emmerich: "Cain's posterity gradually became colored. Ham's children also were browner than those of Shem. The nobler races were always of a lighter color. They who were distinguished by a particular mark engendered children of the same stamp; and as corruption increased, the mark also increased until at last it covered the whole body, and people became darker and darker. But yet in the beginning there were no people perfectly black; they became so only by degrees." And: "I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang."

http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm

These writers understand non-whiteness to be a biological defect caused by a spiritual sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.208.103 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The examples you give can hardly be characterized as being from "a few years ago." Evola inspired fascists, however, are active today. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

These writers understand non-whiteness to be a biological defect caused by a spiritual sin. — Sounds like some crackpot racist Mormon theory (they also claimed that Africans were automagically black due to some unexplained "sin"). Did Evola actually claim such a thing, and if not, why are you bringing it here? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with this poster; it doesnt seem so far removed from Evola's racist, fascist bio-mythology. I'm merely pointing out that those writers were medieval and ancient, not recent. But the comparison is apt. Boodlesthecat (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Did Evola actually claim that Africans were black due to some "sin"? Man, if he actually did that, he must've been on something. Got a source for that by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasAlucard (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is what I said above: "it doesnt seem so far removed from Evola's racist, fascist bio-mythology." What makes Evola more insidious, morally corrupt and reprehensible is that he was spouting his "theories" at a time when the very people he despised, particularly Jews, were being slaughtered by his fellow fascists. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I think most of us know by now that Evola's views were condemned by the SS, and that Evola criticized many of the racial policies of the NS regime in several works, both during and after the war. Saying that Evola held racist views is stating the obvious - incorporating him into some childish fantasy about a massive and homogenous "fascism" pitched against the glorious forces of democracy, bolshevism and anti-racism is really borderline retarded.

And how is Shoah relevant to the Africans are black because of a "sin" theory we're discussing above? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's not apparent to you what part racist, anti-Semitic fascist pseudotheories like Evola's have to do with the Holocaust, I suggest you consult that of the voluminous literature on the subject. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We're in a discussion and it's a very absurd topic, about how the Negroid race somehow became darker in their skin because they had allegedly been "sinful", according to pseudo-scientific theories. Somehow, out of nowhere, the Holocaust appeared in an off topic sentence. I would still like to see a source claiming that Evola theorized similar nonsense like this. Or else, I see no point in continuing this discussion. And look, just because Evola found satisfaction in his fascist buddies slaughtering the Jews, it doesn't mean that he somehow believed Africans were black because they had been sinful. So I don't see how you made that connection. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 16:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What I said above about the connection is quite clear; however, you're right, this discussion is pointless. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, refusing to fashionably conform to the 'orthodox' radical-leftist worldview is not yet a crime in the West, in spite of the efforts at total social control by socialists, neo-Jacobins and neo-Stalinists... Evola's heretical refusal to conform to the Left's doctrinaire dogmas on racial matters is a breath of fresh air in the atmosphere of left-wing philosophical stagnation of our fearful-hearted age, in spite of his idiosyncratic views and occasional excesses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, refusing to fashionably conform to the 'orthodox' radical-leftist worldview is not yet a crime in the West, in spite of the efforts at total social control by socialists, neo-Jacobins and neo-Stalinists — It may not yet be a crime, but it's not far off. According to the leftist, their typical mantra is that there's no such thing as human races, which in my point of view is baloney. However, I'm not going to subscribe to any ridiculous theory that Africans are black because they've allegedly been sinful. Again, if Evola theorised similar nonense, it would be nice with a source for that so we can add it into the article (and perhaps, also disregard anything else the man had to say of intellectual value). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Coogan (Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International, p. 314) on Evola's 'biospiritual' racialism:

Evola shared Yockey's hatred of black people. Thomas Sheehan notes that in Evola's 1941 Sintesi di dottrina della razza, the "utter imbecility" of his racial ideas was revealed by his discussion of a "limit case" called "telegenesis." Evola writes: "A white woman whose sexual relations with a black man have been over for years can, nonetheless, in union with a white man give birth to a black baby" through "subconscious influences." See Thomas Sheehan, "Diventare Dio: Julius Evola and the Metaphysics of Fascism," in Nietzsche in Italy (Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1988), edited by Thomas Harrison, p. 281. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor little fascists, people are just so gosh darn mean to them these days. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be good to be right. Hopefully you yourself will feel persecution some day on account of your retarded views, but it's probably not very likely.

The Book of Mormon attributes dark skin to previous sin. According to the Mormon Bile, the Indians are dark because they had sinned.Lestrade (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Evola was vehemently Anti-Christian. This sounds more like a Christian Identity or Positive Christianity thing. It's based on an obscure quote in the bible from Genesis 2:7 (mud people) and one of the epistles (I don't have my Bible in front of me). Was Evola racist? Probably. Many of his views on race, specifically (spiritual) atavism are somewhat questionable, but rarely intrude on his philosophy proper. Was he Christian? definitely not. 10 minutes alone with one of his books could tell you that. I think you're looking for Chamberlain, DeGobineau, or Rosenberg. Probably Rosenberg. They were into Scientific Racism. Evola never promoted a biological theory on race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Evola (and Serrano) make repeated references to the ancient Book of Enoch in their racial-spiritual theories. Evola's book on the Hermetic tradition in particular refers to these texts. No wonder--the Book of Enoch itself describes the white Nordic physiotype as superhuman and "angelic":

http://www.lunaeterna.net/popcult/religion.htm

Noah as a newborn is described as being very pale in appearance, with white hair and skin. His looks are so unusual that his father, Lamech, initially suspects his wife of having had an adulterous affair with a lusty fallen angel....

CHAPTER 106 (FRAGMENT FROM THE BOOK OF NOAH) And after some days my son Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore a son. And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright. And thereupon he arose in the hands of the midwife, opened his mouth, and conversed with the Lord of righteousness. And his father Lamech was afraid of him and fled, and came to his father Methuselah. And he said unto him: "I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Readers interested in Evola, Serrano, etc. should also take a look at the Nordic Alien entry here. Benjamin Creme believes in a scenario quite similar to Evola and Serrano, with hyperphysical Venusian Nordic aliens from the extramundane etheric plane guiding the evolution of earthlings, etc. The Theosophical inspiration is here again quite evident. Theosophy seems inextricably linked with far-out root-race and therefore racialist ideas in modern history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

More on the Book of Enoch-Theosophical-Ufologist-Nazi connection:

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/meetthenordics.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.174.230 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sumathi Ramaswamy, The Lost Land of Lemuria (University of California Press, 2004), p. 68: Indeed, Theosophy generates a complex geography of human races in which all the black peoples of the world are either Lemurians or their degenerate descendents, while the most advanced peoples of today--white Caucasians--are members of the fifth Root-race, far removed from them (77). In the Theosophical evolutionism, as Spirit--or Monad or Pilgrim--works its way through the history of the earth, it "is compelled to incarnate in, or rather contact, every race" (78). As it marches across the history of the earth, Spirit manifests itself in the form of the various Root-races and sub-races which it successively sheds as it surges upward toward our present Fifth Race, the most perfect so far. Those who get left behind--referred to variously as "sluggards" and "failures"--are destined to stagnate. Arguably, this enchanted evolutionary vision is much more racist and hierarchical than that espoused by many a contemporary disenchanted materialist, for millions of years separate the white Anglo-Saxon from the black aborigine whose origins are ascribed to the "racial decay" that besets the seventh sub-race in the closing years of Lemuria's life on earth (79). Further, rather than emerging from the more perfected forms of the Fourth Root-race on Atlantis, as the majority of northern humanity do, the blacks of the world--"fallen, degraded semblances of humanity"--are deemed to be descendents of a Root-race that was ultimately transcended by other, superior forms (80). Lemuria is handy in this regard as well, allowing the Theosophist to not only place the lower, degraded specimens of humanity in a different time, but also to isolate them further from the more evolved races by tracing their origins to a totally different continental configuration (81). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.1.133 (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To all editors working on this article, when you cite your sources, please try to use any of the following cite templates:

• {{cite book}}
• {{cite journal}}
• {{cite web}}
• {{cite news}}

Depending on your source. And please, add <ref>source here</ref> around the cite templates. Thanks. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading WP:CITE might also be of help. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the categories "Italian Fascists" and "Italian Neo-Fascists." I have not removed the category "Neo-Fascism," since that is nebulous and I suppose one could argue it belongs since many admitted neo-Fascists claim to be influenced by Evola. However, Evola was never a Fascist, nor was he a Neo-Fascist, and so those tags are simply inaccurate.169.229.6.143 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

He actively hated Gentile, too. he called him and Croce "Hegelian epigones". He's Radical Traditionalist. The Fascsist in Italy regarded him as something of a dilettante. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.84.128 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Recently, Republican-Jacboite has reverted an edit clarifying how Inner Traditions has softened Evola's works for English ears. Okay, fine, if "bowdlerized" is an opinion or isn't the right word, how would disinterested scholars describe the fact that his works published by Inner Traditions are all selectively edited and censored, with every ice-cold harsh word Evola has on (what he considers) destructive socialist attitudes, the inferiority of working-class and business people, and irrational modern taboos on differences in ethnic-racial groups, excised in a manipulative manner? Something should be put in the article of this phenomenon of Evola's English-language works being distorted by Inner Traditions, whether we care for Evola's ideas personally or not, just for the sake of scholarly integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.91.35 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried to insert the suggestion that Evola was a pederast. The "evidence" is the dreamings of an amateur speculator and conspiracist. Evola was a morally-shady racialist, a fascist and a believer in a sort of spiritualized Sadeanism/Satanism, but pederast or homosexual is one category of disgrace where Evola clearly doesn't belong. Any suggestion to the contrary is mere slander and propaganda. Evola castigates pederastic homosexuals quite severely in his Metaphysics of Sex as a symptom of degneneration and in several other writings. In Evola's oddball "spiritual Luciferian" worldview, homosexuality/pederasty is an offense against the normal natural order. If we are going to speculate on Evola or even trash his character, let us at least stick to the facts and not sound like uneducated idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.184.19 (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He was certainly not a pederast and he was neither a "Sadeist", nor a Satanist. Evola was a sworn enemy of both degeneracy and egoism on which these attitudes are respectively based upon. Depersonalized Actor

It is the goal of certain Wikipedians that every article on every noted person include a supported or unsupported attribution of sexual inversion as a characteristic quality of that person.Lestrade (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

I removed Evola from this category as "white nationalism" appears to me to be quite contrary to Evola's views. If anyone has any questions please post them. Pollinosisss (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be sensible. The man was a cultural racist, not a biological one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.84.128 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I edited the "Influenced" section to say "Savitri Devi", not "Devi". "Savitri Devi" is an adopted pen name meaning "sun-rays goddess", and can't be shortened except to "Savitri" (along the model of "Paul" for St Paul).

http://www.savitridevi.org/mrs_devi.html

128.164.61.52 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Some writers surely have critisized Evola? Would like to read their arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.235.153 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The current article is in pretty bad shape. I'd much rather see the current contents improved before more sections are added. -Pollinosisss (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the 'politics' section of this page. Everything I have added is sourced, and I did not remove anything that was sourced. I think it is fair to say that categorizing Evola's political views is difficult, and hopefully the information presented will reflect that. Please do not remove any sourced material without first discussing it on this page. 71.231.120.183 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am going to remove the second line at the beginning of this section that states: "His political philosophy was more or less close to Joseph de Maistre, Hermann Wirth, Otto Weininger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Ernst :Jünger, Gottfried Benn, René Guénon, Oswald Spengler, and Bal Gangadhar Tilak." How can Evola have a political philosophy close to de Maistre and Spengler when they themselves don't even share a similar ideology? More importantly, it is an unsourced assertion. 71.231.120.183 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

He's fairly similar to Guenon and the Orientalists. Maistre obviously influenced him, like every throne and altar conservative.

I think the race-section should be shorted down a bit.--83.248.84.14 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [2].) 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)

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. [3]). 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)

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)

- "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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)]

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)

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)

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".^[1]

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)

Evola's influence and relation to Junger's work must be explored in the article. It's worth mentioning he might have been influenced by Jünger's earlier work, and then he considered Jünger a confused liberal/social-democrat who sold himself to the "system". Sources: - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333808570_Translation_of_letter_from_Julius_Evola_to_Ernst_Junger_Nov_1953

- http://www.juliusevola.net/excerpts/Junger_-_from_Conservative_Revolutionary_to_Sluggishly_Liberal_%26_Humanistic.html

- L'"operaio" nel pensiero di Ernst Jünger", (translation: The “Worker” in the Thought of Ernst Jünger") Roma : Armando, 1960, reprint. ForceTOyHwk (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning Evola knew Othmar Spann circle in Austria. He probably attended at least one gathering with Spann and von Salomon. Cited in 'Ernst von Salomon, Der Fragebogen, Hamburg , 1951, 202 - 220' YellBret (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey & The Postwar Fascist International, an academic, historical book on fascism, the author, Kevin Coogan writes:

Evola believed that Jewish culture had a "corrosive irony" and that Jewish intellectuals were in the vanguard of those who denounced Tradition by reducing human activity to materialist economic (Marx) and sexual (Freud) motives. Conspiracy theories about Jews, however, were demagogic aberrations absurdly inadequate to explain Europe's crisis. The ideological hegemony of rationalism and materialism that began with the Renaissance was the real problem.^[1]

— Kevin Coogan

In the first sentence of this article Evola is described as an "antisemitic conspiracy theorist". For this claim there are given two sources:

This seems like thin evidence, especially if an academic trustworthy source says the opposite. Therefore I removed the description "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence of this article. Schenkstroop (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your change to the article. This has been discussed and rejected. Get a consensus on this page before restsoring it. Do no edit against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You may find MOS:LABEL to be relevant here: "Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". IMO If someone wanted to they could try and summarise the section on his views on Jews in the lead and/or add to it regarding some of the content quoted above, but it doesn't seem the sourcing is strong enough to add that contentious label in the lead sentence, especially if there's nothing else discussing anti-semitic conspiracy theories in the body of the article. See below Volteer1 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

He insisted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was true whether or not the document was a forgery. That's anti-Semitic conspiracy theorism. Anything short of that term is watering down his views to make them more palatable. We don't need to let the MOS get in the way of a plain and obvious fact. We don't need to let WP:NOR be misused to argue that:

• a source saying he believed in "a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world"
• a source pointing out how defended and endorsed the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

...somehow don't demonstrate that he was an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist.

It's not contentious to say that he was an anti-Semite, unless one happens to secretly approves of his anti-Semitism (as a few Evola apologists clearly do). It's not contentious to say that the Protocols are an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory; anyone arguing otherwise needs a WP:NONAZIS block. There are already plenty of other sources in the article about his anti-Semitism, there are sources about his endorsement of the Protocols, and the lede is just accurately summarizing all this info in the most succinct and relevant way. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is alot to unpack here:

Your tone against people who disagree with you

First of all, its noteworthy that you describe anyone disagreeing with your exact view as someone who "is watering down [Evola's] views to make them more palatable", as a nazi who "secretly approves" Evola's views. It seems dishonest to label anyone who disagrees with you as a covert nazi. And what about the Kevin Coogan quote? Coogan is an historian and a scholar of fascism. Is he a nazi with a secret agenda too because he thinks Evola didn't believe in anti-semitic conspiracy theories? To be honest with you I am a communist and an anti-fascist. I just don't think "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" should be in the first sentence of the article.

Antisemitism and "antisemitic conspiracy theorist"

Its obvious that Evola was an antisemite. I do not deny that. The quote I provided even proves that point. However this is something else than describing someone as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article. Evola is not mainly known for producing antisemitic conspiracy theories. In fact, there isn't even academic consensus about whether he should be viewed as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, as the Coogan quote proves.

Consensus

So when was the consensus that restrict users from editing established? Could you reference that? It seems like alot of people in this talk thread are against the designation "antisemitic conspiracy theorist.

[4][5][6][7] It seems like you and one other person, Beyond My Ken, are reverting everyone who disagree with you. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.[8] I restored the article. Schenkstroop (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your comments properly. Please do not use section headers within your comments.

There is nothing to "unpack". Ian.Thomson's was straight-forward, and did not require analysis. What you are doing is called WP:WIKILAWYERING, and it will get you nowhere. The bottom line is, you need to gather a WP:CONSENSUS of editors on this talk page to restore your edit. Without it, you would be editing against consensus, which is WP:Disruptive and can lead to being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the status quo ante. To repeat, you must have a consensus from discussion on this talk page to make the change you wish to make. This is mandatory. The next time you attempt to make this change will result in a warning for edit-warring, and the one following will result in a report requesting that you be blocked for edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I've misread that Kevin Coogan quote. My initial worry was that it seems there was some nuance here, in that there is some subtlety to what Evola's on about when he mentions "occult wars" when talking about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that there was some disagreement from relevant subject matter experts about how to interpret his views. Coogan, in that book, seems to be affirming Evola's belief in bona fide anti-semitic conspiracy theories, but just clarifying Evola thought they were comparatively petty truths compared to the real problems that explain Europe's crisis. I think the label is probably fine, but something from Coogan's book should probably be included in the section. As a side note, I don't ever find "you're wikilawyering and we should instead ignore established policy consensus/ignore all rules" to be a particularly convincing argument, it seems there is reason enough to include the label without having to resort to a fully general counterargument. Volteer1 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So many things wrong with this article. The immediate impression is that it is written by people who have an animus against what they think he stands for. One begins to think that it is very biased and not of much epistemic value. Please do something to improve this otherwise it looks and feels like an attack piece on someone who cannot defend themselves.24.139.24.163 (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There are other articles on Wikipedia that seem to some people to be "attack pages", articles such as Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, Alfred Rosenberg, Julius Streicher, Nicolae Ceaușescu and many others. They may seem like "attack pages" because they are factual, they lay out the ideas and deeds of these people, and it turns out that they are horrendous. That's the case here as well. It's rather chic right now in the world of those in the far-right who consider themselves to be "intellectuals" to hold out Evola as some kind of role model, and that means, unfortunately, that people are going to come by here to complain and to attempt to skew the article to make it more complimentary -- or at least less factually accurate -- so that the Evola in this article will better match up with their biased view of their icon. Fortunately, Wikipedia's credo of presenting only the information which is supported by reliable sources prevents that from happening, as long as enough editors are watching the article and reverting biased PoV pro-Evola editing.

SO, in short, I wouldn't hold my breath about this article becoming more to your liking in the future, it's most likely going to continue to be a factual recounting of Evola's life, philosophy, and influence among the fascist far-right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@DevilInTheRadio: Have you read WP:NONAZIS, as I have advised you? Your edits smack of whitewashing. IMHO, you had enough time to read it before performing your edits. WP:CONSENSUS has been discussed above, please read that section also. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Yes. Evola's occupation was not "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist", nor was he known for it, although he did write on the topic. It's fine to mention it, but to do that so prominently in the first line next to his actual occupations is dishonest and only serves political ends, not honest ones. Nothing to do with whitewashing but with intellectual honesty. This issue he only wrote sparingly on, as I'm sure you know. Also, please do not remove the book addition, thank you.

@DevilInTheRadio: You're violating clearly expressed WP:CONSENSUS and seems like you're violating WP:NONAZIS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: How?

@DevilInTheRadio: Watering down, whitewashing, you'll have to explain yourself at WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: It is not watering down nor whitewashing since it was not what Evola was known for, nor was it his occupation. Discuss it where actually appropriate.

@DevilInTheRadio: Changing it to He has also sometimes been referred to as an smacks very much of watering down that statement. Also, the WP:CONSENSUS is that it belongs to the WP:LEDE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Where is the error? He didn't refer to himself as such, but a slect group of others such as Goodrick-Clarke have. Nor has it very often been the focus of the discussion since, as you know, he only wrote sparingly on the topic. Again, it doesn't belong to the WP:LEDE since it was not his occupation, nor what he was primarily known for. Discuss it where it is actually appropriate.

@DevilInTheRadio: WP:1AM, but they're simply offline and I do not WP:CANVASS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have restored the article to the last good version before the editor's PoV edits. They are advised not to edit against consensus again or attempt to whitewash the article Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It has by now been so thoughrougly vandalized by far-left activists there's no point having it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:801:23d:ed5c:d946:7208:27db:f1ca (talk • contribs)

An article not conforming to your personal point of view does not mean it should be deleted. Laplorfill (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)