So whats with this guy? All I ever hear is that hes basically the grandfather of Fascism...

So whats with this guy? All I ever hear is that hes basically the grandfather of Fascism, but from the few things I read by him, he seems to value a free/liberal society as opposed to this brutal authoritarian one.

>Grandfather of fascism
No, that would be Nietzsche.

Evola is more like the uncle of fascism.

>free/liberal
Absolutely not. He's purely an aristocratic reactionary who does not believe in granting the middle class or various civil liberties. Whilst he does not advocate for the authoritarianism of the bourgeois (like Mussolini's regime), he advocates for one led by a nobility.

he has some quote (too lazy to look it up) thats something along the lines of "the greatest roman emperors ruled over free men, not slaves"

Yes I think he's making a remark against totalitarianism and total control of the individual. He's still pushing for near absolute authoritarianism by a nobility.

He actually thought fascism was plebeian shit. He's the grandfather of fascism the same way Bakunin is a grandfather of marxism.

>was plebeian shit
Sort of. He admired National Socialism and even called himself a National Socialist at one point and even lived among Hitler's inner circle. He hated Italian fascism with a deep passion, though.

He meant that slaves in Rome weren't ruled over by the emperor, but they were owned by their masters. So there was a very strict social hierarchy with classes far apart from each other.

Can someone explain to my why would anyone anyone want to associate with this loser and his raped version of indian mythology?

You should read his earlier stuff or just ignore the esoteric parts of his newer works. Most of his followers don't actually practice his spiritual recommendations and just see it as a metaphor.

It's 19th century romanticism mixed with butchered eastern mystic-babble and esotericism. His Hermetic Tradition is an interesting history/exposition of alchemy (alchemy was a total metaphysic and not just proto-chemistry). Jung very much liked Evola's views on alchemy.

There are a few interesting essays and academic works, but most of his writings are toilet paper.

The guy was a brainlet and a sophist (in the full description of the term) seeing as he himself was a moral degenerate.

Feels>reals

>not putting your own feels over "muh rationality".

>Nietzsche
>a fascist
When will this meme die?

He wasn't a racist or anti-semite but racism and anti-semitism have nothing to do with fascism. The stuff he did actually think like romanticism, will to power, non-master/slave morality, etc. are concepts that did have a lot to deal with fascism.

I think fascists found a lot of useful material in Nietzsche, but he was no fascist. Nietzsche HATED barbarity and certainly would have abhorred fascism.

Of course he wasn't a fascist, he died before fascism was even invented.

He was however the granddaddy of fascism, as much as this fact triggered French post-war windbags.

I would describe Evola as more the godfather of Fascism

he didn't have Anglo Victorian and Amerifat protacuckism repression like most people out of the Anglo sphere. This makes him better.

Daily reminder Evola was a a mix of traditionalism and romanticism, not fascism.

>The stuff he did actually think like romanticism, will to power, non-master/slave morality, etc. are concepts that did have a lot to deal with fascism.

But Nietzsche never actually advocated restricting the freedom of anyone. You can't credit him with anything other than being a 19th century Veeky Forumsitzen who wanted to improve himself

>It was Evola's custom to walk around the city during bombing raids in order to better 'ponder his destiny'. During one such raid, 1945, a shell fragment damaged his spinal cord and he became paralyzed from the waist down, remaining so for the remainder of his life.

There's your destiny, bitch.

But unlike limp wristed liberal faggots he didn't care.

That he didn't. But he did advocated an aristocratic society where the weak are subjugated under the strong.

What actually happens to the weak is of no concern to him, they could have all the freedom in the world as far as Nietzsche cares. But what he is concerned with is maintaining a hierarchy.

It's like a farmer. He doesn't care what the cattle do, as long as they stay in the field.

>You can't credit him with anything other than being a 19th century Veeky Forumsitzen who wanted to improve himself
This is disingenuous. There's much, much more to Nietzsche than self-help.

Chiefly Nietzsche is focused on how an individual should orient themselves. But he's also quite a political thinker as his view on an individual can't really be separated from his views on society, where he thinks a very special kind of individual should be exalted above the rest.