Mfw the wikipedia article on Evola reads like a hit piece written by a gender studies graduate...

Like most people, they do it, and it's not just burgerland.
Stop glorifying professors and academics: the history of basically every field of knowledge is plenty of professors strawmanning, lying and not reading primary sources.

You can mention that you disagree with him about those things. If they don't have enough nuance to see that you can enjoy aspects of someone while condemning others then tell them that.

Not everyone has time to go through every primary source on every topic. I mean if they specialized in the subject then they should.

Yeah, I once recommended a piece of literature to one of my professors and she looked it up on Wikipedia. Not mad at her for it, but yeah they do.

You're right. Well, I've mentioned him to close friends and family but not to any professors. One of my professors already made a joke about me coming to school in a Nazi uniform and I've kept everything pretty low-key with him. So I think I'll avoid mentioning it to my professors. Anyways, they're pretty hard-set in their opinions.

Can someone give me a rundown of his other beliefs or else maybe some context that the wiki article is missing? Seems to me that his underlying ideology would be something I wouldn't trust given that he came to that conclusion as a result of it.

This seems like a reasonable thing for anyone to do in that situation. The page will tell you all the basic information you need about the book and you can easily look up other information related to it from the wikipedia page.
What would someone from another country do? Search their library database for literary reviews?

Dude do not compromise your beliefs to [;ease your professors. Self censoring not only whittles you away and makes you lose respect for yourself but it also allows the status quo to maintain itself even when it is wrong. I'm not saying throw out whatever hot opinion you have no matter the context but in a discussion of beliefs be straightforward and honest. It is important that it is demonstrated that reasonable people can disagree. We need that badly right now.,

> anti-democracy, pro-monarchy.
> anti-plebeian, pro-elitism.
> pro-caste, esp. having a warrior caste.
> esotericism, asceticism, etc.
> magic, Buddhism, yoga, meditation.
> thought that world history was cyclical and we're living in the Kali Yuga (basically, the shittiest part of the cycle).
> think of the society of the Cossacks or maybe the Huns, or early Europe with Knights Templars.
> basically, a bunch of warrior-spiritual-elitist stuff.

I've debated this with myself a lot and I think you're right. It's more important to be sincere and to potentially isolate myself than to be a phony and have healthy social relations. I wish I didn't have to compromise like that but yeah.

Can I recommend this guy to my female yoga friends?

Not only that your social relations will improve because you will attract and gain respect from honest free thinking people. You will only alienate the absolutely possessed from you. A healthy social life means being genuine and having people love you for who you genuinely are. Social connections without honesty are hollow and fraudulent, like a stage show put on for nobody.

What good is it for people to like a false image of you? It is like being praised for winning a game that you cheated at. There is no real victory in it and people with integrity can feel it.

Ah I see. Maybe I'll read some of his stuff. I find it really hard to get on board with the "cyclical history"/"yuga cycles" thing though. I've never heard someone give a good reason to actually believe in it besides using it as an a priori argument to try and explain shitty things in the world.

yeah kinda funny that he shares a similar core belief with a lot of new-age hippie types

He doesn't. Quite the opposite, he shares peripheral beliefs with new-age hippies.

You're not fooling me, "that girl" with the nice yoga butt is closer to the Evolian warrior caste than any of us here.

That girl is probably a slutty airhead.

You probably could. I imagine some of his stuff would resonate with them. Especially his books about yoga itself.

Yeah, you're right. This is pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. It's hard to be happy feeling insincere with my closest friends. And I'd much rather have new friends that are closer to me in disposition.

Well, I think there is some truth to the cyclical view of things if but in a poetic sense. Pic related.

This is unironically true. I've met some yoga-doing, meditation-loving girls and thought "if I gave this bitch military and philosophical training Evola would be proud of her."

Attached: normal_2109700008.jpg (650x920, 244K)

if we're speaking of cyclical things in direct relation to Evola, then I can't really argue with you much since I've never read him.
But I've always had these Yuga Cycles explained to me as some sort of consequence of astrological relations, which seems to come from a place of grossly misunderstanding/misinterpreting astronomical relations/phenomena.
Speaking of these cycles from a historical standpoint certainly makes a lot more sense, but it still seems to me like an oversimplification. What about, for example, the impact of technological innovation on the cycle in your picture?

>If they don't have enough nuance
The problem is lack of nuance is the rule, not the exception user. I understand where you're coming from, and as much as I'd like to agree that he shouldn't be afraid of voicing his opinions, I think there are more productive ways of acting out on his values than commiting social suicide. That's for the same reason that it isn't productive to run a political campaign based on that line of thought.
What is to be done, then? I think you can more or less tell who is receptive to certain ideas through short conversations, so that is already a way to measure whether it's worth bringing it up with someone or not. But that is simply the more "vocal" aspect of it. I think the best thing to be done is to a)lead by example and b) have a family based on YOUR beliefs, not the beliefs of the establishment. B is self explanatory, but as to A, nothing talks louder than people seeing you as an examplary person. Be it due to success with family, relationships, career or whatever. If people see the positive change that has effected on your life, they'll be open to listen. Preaching seldom does anything other than justify their fearmongering

this is no way just an American problem, don’t be an idiot.

>Not only that your social relations will improve

Yeah Veeky Forums is a great proof of that

I've actually mentioned him to a teacher during a class on Walden. He had no idea who Evola was. I think I'm going to do a Traditionalist reading of Thoreau as my essay.

Well, I agree with you I don't think that the cycles Evola talks about are a metaphysical truth; although he may well have thought of them as such. I also don't know what reason we'd have to think of the world functioning like that, but it does appear to do so. I think technological innovation creates good times, which creates weak men. Right now, that seems pretty clear. Most men are weak and technology is only expanding. It also seems like these weak men are creating hard times, slowly but surely.

I suppose for him, like for many conservative thinkers, the metaphysical reality doesn't change even when the material world does. So the technological advances would have to be factored into the cyclical nature of the world.

I think in a poetic sense this idea has some truth. The world does seem to have cycles. Is it a metaphysical reality? Well, that would require some deep philosophical work that I simply can't do.

reddit pleb faggotry

all evola fags write like redditors. weak, unsteady, and incapable of depth analysis. no vac, no elan, no light footedness. dead in the water, diction of a college student, poor sense of humor and faux sombre countenance. Weak, theiving from others, totally submissive to earthly power, the trads are cum licking servile ants in the wake of their handsome worldly oriented warrior caste Lords.

And don't forget the reason many people misinterpret him is because they completely miss the metaphysical aspect of it. The spergs you see on /pol/ and other places once in a while were, ironically, a kind of people he criticized. The kind of people who would read the Metaphysics of Sex as some sort of sex manual, as opposed to, well, the metaphysics of gender relations.
For those of you who might be interested in his works, pic related is useful.

Attached: Evola.png (994x4724, 1.6M)

Holy shit, saved that pic.
And yeah, you're right. I think he would've hated most of today's right and the anons on /pol/. Or perhaps not hated, but he would've found them misguided, just like he critiqued other youth movements in his time.

I don't advocate a bull headed approach. Grace and tact should be used at all turns. Obviously you pick your battles. Some things are a waste of time to fight. But you must be able to put your foot down when it is important.

Veeky Forums is not people being honest. Interacting with actual people face to face brings up entire faucets of personality that are inactive during anonymous online interaction. Veeky Forums is an aspect of someones genuine personality, not the total.

It's a matter of method. Even with something considered fringe, such as "Evolian thought", it's a matter of how you deliver the information. In general, the best method is humor. But since I'm not great into it I'd rather have a family innawoods and ignore plebs

Tact is critical yes.

The issue here is not misinterpreting him, something that happens a lot. They would probably be receptive to his ideas linking Eastern thought to esotericism, which might in turn gradually introduce them to some of his other ideas. I'm wary of more people misunderstanding him, though. There is already plenty of that.

This image would be better without the pretentious pictures at the bottom.

the second

I wouldn't mention I like Evola to anyone, that's next level powerlevel revealing

Something I often wonder about is whether it would be possible to, at the very least, tone down the impact of the cycle stages through the correct society. That would probably be semi-barbarism: not complete lawlessness, but still an awareness that nature rules supreme, and as a result of that, some artificial challenges would be imposed, simulating what would happen in nature, so people don't grow soft. But I think that on the long term people would abandon it and eventually face the hardships again. The Spartans were interesting in that they took eugenics and the like seriously, but the problem is that they put too much emphasis on the military, and too little on philosophy. One of the results of that was their low birth rates, which eventually saw them replaced in their own homeland.

>tfw Julius Evola is regularly mentioned in your hyper left wing college’s religion symposiums
>tfw having a 40 minute long conversation with literature prof about the literary merits of Italian Fascism
>tfw students at school have formed a Heidegger book club in reaction to rampant leftism

Every time I get fed up with school, I look at Veeky Forums and feel reaffirmed.

Give me a TL:DR in this ancap thinker, is this basically Reddit's Nick Land but even crazier?

You're right. Edited it out.

Attached: Evola guide.jpg (993x3657, 1.22M)

Yeah, but he is pretty obscure so I get by.

Hmmm.. well, I think it'd be a good idea. We could probably use something like that: light eugenics, military or at least physical training, asceticism, etc. I don't see it ever happening on a society wide level but I think each person should try to live according to some principle of hardship. I advocate for inward fascism.

Dang, I'm surprised Evola and Heidegger have any traction at your school. That's cool.

Stop thinking in terms of fads, that's a first step. More than it has already been summed up ITT, I'd say his thought is basically that we should adapt to nature, not otherwise. What that means in his philosophical context has a lot to do with hierarchies, their importance and function. As expected, this kind of subject leads to a lot of misinterpretation by spergs. It's not for everyone, to begin with. If you're the kind who expects a thread on Veeky Forums to appropriately sum up his thought then you are likely not his target audience. As it was brought up on previous replies, you also can't trust wikipedia and the like(what a surprise). If you are truly interest in his thought, refer to

Large populations inherently lead to a myriad of destructive issues. Even if there were no concerns with limited resources and the like, it still needs to be heavily taken into consideration the effects a large population has on each individual. It's half the reason why cities breed so many horrors. The other half is the philosophy behind urban environments.

Do you share this belief that we should just totally "accept" or "adapt" to nature?
It's certainly good to acknowledge what is natural in us, but wouldn't it be better to overcome the nastier sides of nature (rape, etc) in order to create a world with less suffering?
Perhaps Evola has written about an answer to this?

Probably not, one good quote from "Revolt Against the Modern World":

"Generally speaking, in the USA, while men work, women get involved in 'spiritual issues'; hence the strong percentage of women in countless sects and societies in which spiritualism, psychoanalysis, and counterfeits of Eastern doctrines are mixed with humanitarianism, feminism, and sentimentalism, as well as with social versions of puritanism and scientism--all things that truly reflect the American understanding of 'spirituality' " (p 351)

Attached: 1519521806537.jpg (960x1280, 180K)

>I thought everybody here knew that his wiki page got completely changed during the 2016 election race in america.
This. It used to be much more moderate. They even picked a more edgy photo for the article.

It's a redpill for female yogis. I wish some of them would swallow it.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
I guess once they connected Bannon to him they sought to slander him as much as possible.

Little did they know they actually gave a pretty dope reading list in the "Political Influence" section.

Yes, I share this belief. But you seem to misunderstand what is meant with it. We can't negotiate with nature, what is is, period. A doctrine which preaches "overcoming nature" or something of the like is bound to fail.
The problem is many people commit grave mistakes in regards to what is defined as natural. You gave an example yourself, rape. Why do you define that as natural? In humans, it is destructive, hence nature punishes the perpetrator(or "allower"). A society in which rape goes by unpunished is governed by chaos, thus it will eventually go extinct. For humans to survive in nature, they need societal cohesion, which obviously is disrupted in such cases. If you're thinking of rape in war time, how is it different from a man getting his skull split in half with an axe? With that said, even in war there is wrong and right. The best way I know of explaining it is through the traditional European notion of honour. Those honourable live according to natural law. There is a lot to be said about this, and Evola does tackle some of these subjects much more eloquently than me, but overall I find it important to point out that accepting nature is not about being some boundless beast, it's about survival. For an individual and a society to be "optimal survivalists", they have no choice but to live according to a certain set of rules, which they learn from observing nature. I'm aware this comes off as vague, but all I can do in one reply is make clear that what most people envision when natural law is brought up is grossly misguided. For the nuts and bolts, read Evola and delve into similar thinkers. The modern view largely stems from Abrahamic thought, which sees nature as an enemy to be overcome, instead of an ally to learn from.

>Evola hated women.
This is a quote from the Quartz article. It's quite obvious that, for example, your average yogi girl will abhor him as soon as she reads that. They know very well what are the core beliefs of their public and the best way to use it to fan the flames. Evola isn't easy to be truly understood, so I don't think it's wise to expect someone to begin being redpilled by his work, it will be a leap that will scare them off most of the time. Probably convincing them that outlets such as Quartz are ridiculously unqualified is a better first step. And this is ignoring some people simply don't have the capacity to understand his work, Nicholas Spark readers are likely to be on that list.

>During his trial in 1951, Evola denied being a fascist and instead referred to himself as a "superfascist".
love this guy

Attached: 0b01e585f0cc0ddb6b79c76afe63b68304b16d86fd96ad9156574df78761d37d.jpg (480x387, 26K)

So the "nature" you refer to isn't necessarily an animal nature, but a natural state of being for humans? It just seems to me to be something very hard to pin down, but maybe I'm just getting too caught up in the term itself.
So what you mean is that a penchant towards survival is what is "natural" and that humans should just go along with it? Wouldn't that make war (for any purpose) given each human's desire for self preservation unnatural on an individual level when we live in a society as impersonal as ours is today?
I certainly believe in honor but I believe the traditional European notion of honor emerged in a society that left the majority of its people living in squalor, so I tend to question it's efficacy for the well-being of the average person.

(in answer to your question, I only gave rape as an example because our desire to reproduce is something that is natural and rape is a consequence of that - especially in a patriarchal society where men are physically stronger than women. Rape also occurs in nature with many animals such as ducks and dolphins)

I realize the impetus is on you right now and it's easy for me to raise objections to little parts of what you're saying. I'm just trying to get at what Evola wanted to say in regards to these things and you seem to be familiar with his work and I (obviously) can't talk to him right now.

They also might know him and realize you're a pleb.

>I'd say his thought is basically that we should adapt to nature, not otherwise.
IS
OUGHT
IS
OUGHT
IS
OUGHT
IS
OUGHT

This is the gayest thing you could respond with. Go to Reddit.

IS
OUGHT

I'm a suprafascist.

I'm a suprüberfascist. I make Evola look tame.

What the hell? Where do you go to school?

I've been noticing a lot more of this kind of "scholarship" lately,

Is this untrue?

Not the guy you are replying to, but I've got a minor nitpick. Men would always be stronger than women, regardless of whether a society is patriarchal or not. It would take extreme genetic engineering or artificial selection to reverse this.

Realistically, there would be even more sexual dimorphism in a matriarchal society since there wouldn't be the patriarchal constraint to monogamy found in most patriarchal societies (which would likely lead to women choosing the largest, strongest etc men).

Pretty much every mammal has larger,stronger males than females (the only exception off the top of my head is hyenas).

Also, I feel like the benefit of honor can be seen in honorable vs dishonorable people. If you've spent enough time with both, the honorable people are better in almost every way. They are loyal but not afraid to confront you when you are out of line, they can be trusted to act right when no-one is watching etc.

Comparing now with the past is hard too, you could argue the reason we don't live in squalor is because of the accumulated achievements of our (comparatively) honorable ancestors; it's not really a surprise that successful civilizations (China, Greece, Rome...) valued honor.

Attached: 1518247154981.jpg (2560x1440, 1.56M)

Yeah it is. The quote they used was taken out of context. He essentially argued that the man's role in sex was the dominator, the women's role the dominated.

I wasn't trying to say that men are stronger than women BECAUSE of patriarchal society, but the opposite - that we have a patriarchal society for that reason. Sorry for confusion, but the point I was making about rape stands either way.

Can you elaborate your point on sexual "dimorphism"? I don't think you're using that term right, as dimorphism refers to physical differences in genders. This is a result of genetics, not society as you seem to imply.

I am in no way trying to devalue honor (I strongly believe in it myself and I do believe society greatly benefits when people act "honorably").
I just don't think that this idea of "honor" is adequate for producing an optimum or ideal society, since social relations have become much more complex as populations have grown and direct accountability has fallen in the general populace.

In reference to your point about our ancestors, it's just hard to acknowledge (speaking for example only about American History) "honorable" people when they can be held accountable (at least partially) for a lot of problems in our society today. I'm sure a lot of the founding fathers were very "honorable" in the traditional european way, but many of them were certainly at least complacent in slave owning, adultery, etc. I don't find these things honorable.

>the best method is humor
No.

Attached: David_Foster_Wallace.jpg (1113x888, 312K)

And about 99% of women would have agree with that. So there's no problem.

>I realize the impetus is on you right now and it's easy for me to raise objections to little parts of what you're saying
Don't worry, the more you question me the more I'm forced to better organise my thought.

When I say nature, I mean the natural order. For example, much of physics is something we learned observing nature. You can't negotiate gravity. The notion of nature I'm trying to get across is that nature this process of learning from observation can be extended to include a philosophical system, it isn't restricted to physics, chemistry, biology and math(which are all a product of logic anyway). Well, if the "goal" of the hard sciences is being able to better use resources(originally towards our survival, in this point in time for many other means) and the like, the goal of philosophy is to learn "the correct" mechanism of acting in this world, in what way individuals, and consequently society, should act so as to get the most out of our time alive. This means both survival and a search for meaning. If the Greeks created a set of philosophical schools stemming from human logic, Evola's goal is to bring back ancient knowledge that wasn't "created", but observed, and thus can be said to be natural. As you might have already guessed, this makes it so that his work brings up mysticism, and that's one of the reasons why The Hermetic Tradition should be read first. It both clears any confusion that might arise from jumping straight to his most famous works(such as Revolt) and weeds out those looking for a quick read, since this is one of his heaviest books.
>How come could people in the past observe a moral system in nature? It's not as objective as observing the boiling point of water!
That's one of the answers you will find in his work. As a mere user, I'd remind you that we don't always live in the brightest of times, despite the modern arrogance, devoid of historical perspective. For proof of that ask your average person whether they think they are smarter than people who lived 2000 or more years ago.

In order for that to be established, there has to be some level of confidence and trust in the idea that one side or the other won't suddenly make an insincere turn in their argument, or that there won't be some overly negative consequences from actual, genuine debate

Not the user, but the one you originally addressed the question to.

>I strongly believe in it myself and I do believe society greatly benefits when people act "honorably"
>I just don't think that this idea of "honor" is adequate for producing an optimum or ideal society
You're contradicting yourself.

>social relations have become much more complex as populations have grown and direct accountability has fallen in the general populace
This is part of what I meant with "learning from nature". The correct value system is timeless. Just like nature, hence why we learn from it. Because it reigns supreme. Further, in "more complex societies" and larger populations, the honourable will be even more valuable, because large concentrations lead to a growth in corruption, moral decay etc as a rule.
And just because in our modern conception people like the founding fathers were honourable, it doesn't make them perfect. Perhaps they look honourable because of the contemporary faults, not because they were particularly exceptional themselves. Adultery, slavery and the like are certainly not honourable, but you must bear in mind that the history of the Americas is still very recent on the big scheme of things, and a critique of the modern world doesn't imply only the 20th century onwards. Keep in mind much of our current reality stems from events which happened centuries ago, most obviously the Industrial Revolution and Illuminism. Our entire "external" reality is built on that, be careful not to think that is the standard when there were hundreds of thousands of human history before that. The Americas tend to corrupt people, for a myriad of reasons I will only expand on if you ask, and in regards to the US, Evola was one out of many people who already criticized it before WW2(which I bring up as a landmark because it is the current Western founding myth). This is one of the reasons why he has to be read in a certain order, to understand that his topics mostly center around metaphysics, i.e. much beyond what happened in the last 50, 100, or even 500 years. That is not to say he speaks in metaphors, of course, but his goal is pointing to timeless truths, revealed by nature. If you let this search be polluted by recent events you're already misunderstanding him. A notion of honour is fixed, regardless of its popularity or lack thereof in a certain society. Both the populations that do and do not take it into consideration will reap what they've sown.

Attached: butthurt creme.jpg (768x576, 48K)

Not the guy you're quoting, but it's not a contradiction. Being in love with your wife is, in many people's opinions, beneficial, but it is not adequate for producing children. You have to actually have sex to do that. However, families with parents who love each other are "better" than families where the parents do not love each other.

Likewise, honorable societies are better than dishonorable ones. However, honor is not sufficient to produce the "ideal" society.

>Can you elaborate your point on sexual "dimorphism"? I don't think you're using that term right, as dimorphism refers to physical differences in genders. This is a result of genetics, not society as you seem to imply.

I was just saying stronger/larger men would be selected for in a matriarchal society. Gene-culture co-evolution would be the term for it, that is, different societies would favor different genes (and vice versa).

I dislike most of the TRP/PUA etc stuff on the internet, put it's hard for me to deny that without men regulating them, women will tend to (almost) exclusively go for the top 20% of men in strength/attractiveness. So I was hypothesizing that in a matriarchal society, those traits would be selected for (of course, only God knows though).

Attached: 1520251405392.jpg (1920x1080, 400K)

damn
sounds like the generic power trip / inferiority complex most authoritarians share. pathetic, has he written anything of value?

How is being in love with your wife not adequate for producing children? If you love each other you'll have sex.

And I didn't say honour is the only factor in producing an ideal society, but it sure is a big factor. I thought it was obvious I used the notion of honour as one example, and not the center piece of his work(or my comments even).

I'm having trouble recognizing how Evola could have concluded based on a tradition of philosophy/knowledge largely stemming from men who advocated and were largely responsible for the rise of democracy that we should trust in absolutism or fascism.
Again, I should just read him instead of drilling you about it, but I've enjoyed hearing what you have to say.

As for your second part, I don't believe myself to be "smarter" than people 2000 years ago. We just have more resources and therefore can achieve more, just as a modern home-builder can construct a superior home to your average home-builder of thousands of years ago due to access to tools and resources.

I'm very interested in what ancient knowledge Evola would like to tell us about.

comfy pic

thanks user