Does Evola have anything interesting to say or is he just a /pol/lack philosopher?

Although his books are kind of abstruse they actually are really insightful if you are interested in transcending mediocrity/materialism/nihilism.
One of the most beneficial parts of The Doctrine of Awakening is evola’s many examples of what it means to be a truly noble person, and how a noble spirit reacts, identifies and makes choices when it finds itself within degenerating/samsaric existence.
The second half of The Doctrine of Awakening is actually very practical if you are spiritually/metaphysically inclined.

I'm pol and I like Evola, he was too fascist, and far right for the Nazis.

Which ones?

>>Jews were the carriers of a world view...a spirit [that] corresponded to the 'worst' and 'most decadent' features of modernity: democracy, egalitarianism and materialism

lol, what a mama's boy

That's what a pampered manchild looks like

read him and find out for yourself.
if you have to make a Veeky Forums thread about a guy so you know if it's cool to like him or not, you're a fucking loser.

both of the above you slave to partisanship

Go and read him for heaven's sake. You can find quite a few of his books online for free as PDFs.

democracy, egalitarianism and materialism are unironically great

you are deaf to the sins of this world

lol. which sins are you upset about

and you'd be hard pressed to find a system that has no negatives.

Ride the tiger brah

Ive only read doctrine of awakening and it was surprisingly faithful to the buddhist canon even under his traditionalist framework of analysis. I doubt he was as 'volkisch' as /pol/ describes him to be.

corruption of democracy undermines the point and the whole system relies on the assumption that voters are well informed and capable of critical thinking.
egalitarianism i don't take too much issue with as long as it is genuine
materialism corrupts the soul, again this is not a very controversial statement.

and just because it would be hard to find a system with no negatives doesnt mean we should not still strive to reach one with as few negatives as possible

Introduction to Magic, and The Hermetic Tradition.

No

>lol, what a mama's boy
>That's what a pampered manchild looks like
Wow what a good argument... laughable considering what he's done

>too fascist, and far right for the Nazis.
Hm

>calling out the powers that be makes you a babby!

Nice projection, SJW lefty.

clearly, we must make democracy less corrupt. reforming the electoral system is the most obvious first step. and what makes you think any other system would be immune to corruption?

you'll have to define what you mean by materialism. if you mean addictive consumerism, then obviously that's not ideal. however material wealth is objectively good for enabling long lifespans, greater quality of life, and freedom to do what you want.

Is there a communist equivalent of Evola?

this guy is so comically evil looking

No because Evolas beliefs weren't primarily materialistic. Why would you want a communist evola anyway

That's what I like about him
Because it's funny?

What makes you a baby is thinking that you are special and worthy of more consideration than others, that you are more deserving of freedom than others, just because you were born in some aristocratic family and were told by mommy that you were special.

What makes you a baby is thinking that people are “born great” in noble families that became noble because they were “naturally gifted”, thus deserving to “rule over their inferiors – all others”.

That’s childish beyond believe.

Funny that guys like Evola think of themselves as examples of manhood and strength but are always willing to lick the feet of emperors, royalty and military leaders, in a clear show of submission.

So not only a pampered momma’s boy, but also a warlord-bitch.

>laughable considering what he's done

Neither a great scientist nor a great artist. So the high opinion he had about himself is not justified.

>Funny that guys like Evola think of themselves as examples of manhood and strength but are always willing to lick the feet of emperors, royalty and military leaders, in a clear show of submission.
>equating following capable leadership towards a higher goal with "submission"

More SJW projection. Keep it up, lefty brainlet.

wrhfg

equivalent in what way?

Evola is one of the few of the 20th century Fashy / ultra rightists who is essential in my view. Stuff like Spengler is interesting and if you like that stuff you'll appreciate it, but Evola is largely an apolitical writer.

He was interested in anthropology I guess, there's some overlap with Mircea Eliade ("Sacred and Profane"), who actually was also involved in the far right in Romania.

Evola isn't a fascist apologist, was actually targeted at points by the "action squads" (blackshirts) in Italy and only his personal relations with regime members afforded him protection. The Germans liked him less, he attacked scientific racism repeatedly and felt the fascists had betrayed their early promise in most cases.

In some ways he was too right wing for the regimes, he's really a religious author and a philosopher more than politics. He is a massive influence on the French New Right (De Benoit gets less clever when you realise he's largely just repeating Evola), and I love to speculate on what Evola would have made of the resurgence of religious terrorism and so on.

He's a bright, complex guy who went through various phases in his thought. He is useful for understanding fascism, but goes way beyond it in his criticisms and interests. I would recommend him highly.Pic related is one of his paintings.

Brainlets out. I bet you are a manlet too.

Couldn't be really, he's too spiritually inclined. Wouldn't lend itself to materialism.

Maybe Russel Brand.... LOL

>That’s childish beyond believe.
What's childish about it? You sound like a communist.
>das unfair
>das mean
>he a mommys boy for wanting living an aristocratic and not giving everything away wah wah

>Hasn't read Evola's description of loyalty and fidelity as the highest European virtues
>Doesn't understand his idea of the true warrior fighting for a man and a cause or a collective

The list goes on, that guy hasn't read Evola

Sorry *and not fighting for a cause or collective

>What makes you a baby is thinking that you are special and worthy of more consideration than others, that you are more deserving of freedom than others, just because you were born in some aristocratic family and were told by mommy that you were special.
Did the egalitarian get his fee fees hurt? Awww :(

The first man you replied to was arguing against the second man.

I know, was just (you) fishing

>What makes you a baby is thinking that you are special and worthy of more consideration than others, that you are more deserving of freedom than others, just because you were born in some aristocratic family and were told by mommy that you were special.

Nigger have you fucking read his books? He openly stated that true freedom should be reserved to those who are ready for it, and that it isn't just reserved to certain aristocratic castes but only to those who have been initiated (following Guenon's theories).

>Funny that guys like Evola think of themselves as examples of manhood and strength but are always willing to lick the feet of emperors, royalty and military leaders, in a clear show of submission.

Except he remained critical of both fascist italy and natsoc germany, while he was active within both states. He openly called Mussolini out on his shit and the only reason the SS tolerated him was because Himmler had a personal interest in his work on esotericism.

>and I love to speculate on what Evola would have made of the resurgence of religious terrorism and so on.
He's open about it in his works. He said that any exoteric religion of today is divorced from a higher esoteric truth, and that it should therefore be done away with. He had one particular article devoted to how people who cheris hope in Islam are fools.

evola was a manlet and so was Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander, Mussolini, Julius Caesar, Putin, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky etc

most great men are short these insults only work if your ego is completely tied up in the ability to kill people and getting pussy, which are brutish values not worthy of masters, not worthy of rulers.
you're fucking retarded man
wow man you're like a fucking meme lord wizard god, wow only the warriors can do the magic wow that's so crazy. Interesting how that's complete fucking nonsense and the Druids and High Priests of MENA were all of the priestly-philosopher caste, neo-platonism and hermeticism were only taught to rulers and priests, there were so few warrior mystics historically I can't even think of more than 2 or 3 wow really makes you think what a genius man
quality of life has diminished in the west
he looks like a fucking dork
it is submission you fucking nigger, read the fucking Republic, the Warriors and merchants SUBMIT themselves to the Master class, the rulers who are strong in mind and body. The champions of aristocracy will not be among the aristocracy and are thus by definition SUBJECTS, those who are SUBJECT submit themselves inevitably to higher authority. Stop fucking lying
warriors are not mystics, he made up a system of thought by trying to graft Druidic-Greco-Vedic spirituallity onto the warrior castes of the North and the ancient world. His work is fraudulent

>Evola is one of the few of the 20th century Fashy / ultra rightists who is essential in my view.

Look into Codreanu, he was even greater.

But then again, the only thing lefty SJWs read these days is Buzzfeed articles and worthless plebbitor gossip.

Are you alright?

Do you have a link to that article? I would love to read his in depth views on Islam. Imagine that was a point of contention with Guenon haha

>those who are SUBJECT submit themselves inevitably to higher authority

The current leftist neoliberal democracies ruling the western world ensure you will get shit tier authorities only worried about their own selfish agendas and elected by retards every time instead of capable ones leading. Weimerica right now is the best example.

>graft Druidic-Greco-Vedic spirituallity onto the warrior castes of the North
I would argue the Norse pantheon meet the criteria of warrior-mystics.

He says that in a degenerated society the warrior and priest are separate anyways, and there's an essay in ATCF (I think its "2 nationalisms") where he points out superior warfare should involve ideals, not necessarily be fought by priests, but by men who understand why and who they fight for and view it as a multi faceted struggle.

Loved For My Legionaires, it has good lessons for the present situation as well, bizarre to think how the Iron Guard essentially grew out of a student movement. The Evola essay where he interviews Codreanu is great as well but much too brief sadly.

It's an excerpt from the Path of Cinnabar:

>The realistic point of view I felt the need to adopt in Ride the Tiger has lately led to my polemical confrontation with certain people who still cherish false hopes with regard to the current potential of 'traditional residues'. For instance, I discussed certain matters with Titus Burckhardt, who pointed to remnants of Tradition in areas outside Europe. I felt compelled to ask Burckhardt whether he was willing to acknowledge the fact that these areas, too, will fall subject to 'cyclical laws' - in which case, any emphasis on places where devolution has yet to reach the level it has reached in the West seems rather irrelevant. Burckhardt also mentioned the existence of 'spiritual influences that, albeit often invisible, by far surpass all of the material powers of humanity', and which are exercised by surviving 'initiatory' centers. While stressing the fact that I do not deny the possibility that similar influences might exist, I remarked that it is likely that those centers capable of exerting them might have received the order not to do so, in such a way as to not interfere with the general process of devolution. Otherwise, what should we make of a place like Tibet, which is being invaded and profaned by the Chinese Communists? Or of the Japanese kamikaze, who in most cases were decimated like flies by the massive firepower of terrified anti-aircraft crews, and were never allowed to draw near to the enemy so as to activate 'the wind of the gods'? And while some Sufi initiatory centers certainly exist within Islam, their presence hardly prevents the Arab world from 'evolving' at an increasing speed in a modernist, progressive and anti-traditional direction. To these, many other examples might be added. (I returned to such matters in a chapter of the second edition of my book, The Bow and the Club, entitled 'Initiatory Centers and History'.)
>The world, therefore, appears to be left to its own resources. In other words, the general process of 'solidification' and deconsecration of the world limits the influence of the aforementioned powers - powers which are also difficult to measure without taking account of the sphere of action, as well as that of pure knowledge. Once again, the impression one gains is that the cycle is drawing to a close.

Yes he is too racist, everyone on /r/books agreed on that and I asked my literature professor and she said that he was a pseud as well.

a little worked up today, but not upset at you all don't worry bb
>I would argue the Norse pantheon meet the criteria of warrior-mystics.
I would argue that the Druids are the main source of spirituality in Northwestern European history and all historical evidence points to them being a separate caste of priests who did not fight in battle but ruled in tandem with the warriors. Warrior spirituality is not the same thing as rule by warriors. He's obfuscating that the warrior caste ruled but that their power was drawn from physical might and the approval of the priests, they themselves were not the source of spirituality in their cultures. This is a lie

I agree with a lot of the things Evola believes wholeheartedly its just he goes out of his way to equivocate and distort parts of the global spiritual tradition to prop up aristocrats, who do not need anymore help.
this has nothing to do with what I said, and I don't for a second think FDR or Clinton were significantly worse rulers than a Roman emperor was. Expansion does not mean efficacy of rule, plenty of leaders like the Khans expanded their territories only to lose all of the power and collapse their own cultures. The vast majority of improvements to the human condition from rulers is within the proximity of their territories historical borders.

See that's very interesting, I'd always understood his idea of cycles to be independent to each culture / civilisational group, a bit like Spengler, but he seems to be implying that the whole world is locked in the same cycle and it manifests itself across cultures. Is this accurate or am I running off with it>?

Literally a NEET LARPer.

Evola actually criticized Spengler for what he perceived as his "blindness" to metaphysical forces that were at work. Despite this, Evola was deeply influenced by Spengler's philosophy of cycles.

> Hates modernity
> Wants the aristocracy back
> Facist intellectual
> Hates Liberalism (classical)
> Doesn't believe in rationality
/pol/ loves this guy, though I think some haven't come to terms with his anti-empiricism idealistic views he really was just an angsty /pol/ack salty about not being able to fit into society anymore.

I don't think he discovered any transcendental truth to share with the world and his writings on sex really are odd to say the least.

He's a fucking white male! What's wrong with being a jew?

Yeah you weally GOTIM haha fuck napoleon "fucking white male" Bonaparte he is just a manlet and so insecure that is white I've learned studying the (((frankfurt school))) being proud and dominating is actually being INSECURE lmao XDDD thats why goyim hate us they wanna be like us leftist are the manly men haha except maleness is a (((social construst)))

So definitely /ourguy/ then?

pol doesn't actually read these guys. I spend a lot of time over there and I have never encountered a single person with a deep understanding of Spengler, even though he is very frequently namedropped.

They are better on Evola to some degree, but they still basically never talk about his actual philosophy, they just apply the superficial bits to their understanding of political history.

he's a meme and can be safely ignored.

His spiritual writings are good.

>muh pol doesn't read

he has to say 'grrr return aristocracy nao!'

“In a society that no longer understands the figure of the ascetic and of the warrior; in which the hands of the latest aristocrats seem better fit to hold tennis rackets or shakers for cocktail mixes than swords or scepters; in which the archetype of the virile man is represented by a boxer or by a movie star if not by the dull wimp represented by the intellectual, the college professor, the narcissistic puppet of the artist, or the busy and dirty money-making banker and the politician—in such a society it was only a matter of time before women rose up and claimed for themselves a “personality” and a “freedom” according to the anarchist and individualist meaning usually associated with these words.”

I've not properly read Spengler, was a Neitszchian as I understand it, and Evola is quite good and pointing out the limits of Neitzsche

Yes, definitely. Even plebs can be interesting some of the time but Ebola is just off the charts boring and dumb.

No