Iran: Iranian revolutionaries kick out the US-British-Israeli backed Shah and establish the Islamic Republic of Iran with Imam Ruhollah Khomeini as the Supreme Leader. Khomeini's second in command and the man set to take his place when the old Imam dies is none other than the current IRL Supreme Leader of Iran: Sayyed Ali Khamenei.
Italy: Julius Evola is not only still alive (either by not drinking alcohol or drinking a lot less than he did in real history; he died of liver problems iirc) but has either just taken or recently taken (in the past few years) power through some sort of coup or Machiavellian power plays to establish himself as the Pater-Capitano or Pater-Dirigente (Father-Leader) of a new Ultra-Traditionalist Romanic Catholic-Neopagan(?) Italian State. Evola's second in command set to take his place to lead Italy upon his death is his close disciple Pino Rauti.
Evola, surrounded by NATO or Soviet-aligned Warsaw Pact or independently socialist/communist countries like Hoxha's Albania and Tito's Yugoslavia, decides to make an offer to Khomeini to establish a close Italy-Iran pact/axis on an anti-NATO, anti-Soviet basis. Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon would provide the coastal Mediterranean trade nexus for Evola's Italy to be connected to Iran through the Lebanon-Syria-Iraq-Iran route (or at least, temporarily, Saddam's Iraq might very well still close off Iraq to Iranian allies concurrent to invading Iran in 1980 just like in the real history, who knows).
Is this something Evola would actually have plausibly considered (trying to make close ties with Islamic Iran I mean)? Would Khomeini have accepted? What would Evola and Khomeini have thought of each other as individuals and ideologically, respectively?
How much would this have altered the course of world history?
This is oddly specific; I doubt it would affect the world too much unless this created a chain reactionary waves hitting other nations
Xavier Young
Also just based on Evola's temperament and ideaology it seems unlikely that he would try for a power grab, but I might be basing that off of a power grab That was inspired by his writing that he denies all connection to.
Joseph Anderson
Literally no chance of Evola gaining political power
Kayden Rivera
OP here. I'm not even a traditionalist or fascist or "alt-right", first off.
Second, >Literally no chance of Evola gaining political power This is an alt-Veeky Forums thread. I am well-aware that IRL Evola didn't seem to give much of a care for political power, and perhaps was not even capable/charismatic enough to be able to obtain political power even if he wanted to in real life. However, I'm not asking about how history actually went down. I'm interested in the intellectual discussion of what Evola might have acted like in an alternative historical universe where he was interested in political power and actually managed to obtain it somehow.
Beyond anything, I'm interested almost purely in the political-economic, historical and ideological aspects of what an Evola-ist Italy would be like, and how Evola as a leader and as an ideologue would have interacted with Khomeini's Islamic Republic of Iran.
And vice-versa, how Khomeini and Islamic Iran would have interacted with Evola as a person and an Evola-ist Italy in the 1979-1980's era and beyond (into 2018 and beyond even) of this alternative universe.
Jackson Murphy
>Is this something Evola would actually have plausibly considered (trying to make close ties with Islamic Iran I mean)? Yes. You correctly identified Evola's dual dislike of Capitalism and Communism. Evola also liked Islam as a religion in many respects. >Would Khomeini have accepted? Of course. From an ideological standpoint, Khomeini especially hated the superpowers of his time, and Italy would be a useful ally. >How much would this have altered the course of world history? Now Italy is sanctioned post-Cold War as well and there are numerous calls and politicians calling for Italy to get invaded alongside Iran, but most likely will not materialize.
Landon Sanders
Evola would have been 81 years old by 1979. That's too old to establish that kind of political power. Even Trump, who's about as energetic as an old man will get, is 71. That's 10 years younger. Also it sounds like you're essentially creating something that already exist. The Non-aligned movement.
John Butler
For Italy to have been independent after WWII they'd need to reject the marshal plan. They'd be much poorer and weaker as a result though, creating a sort ironic scenario where they still aren't really independent.
Gavin James
Would there not have been at least some kind of ideological tension or conflict based on Evola being a racist/racialist Occultist-neopagan type versus Khomeini's more millenarian-universalist Islamism? I recall reading several passages in one of Khomeini's written works (Fundamentals of the Islamic Revolution, iirc) where he very explicitly opposes any and all racial/ethnic-nationalist/tribalist conceptions and waxes poetic about "the fundamental unity of all humans under Allah" or something like that.
Here's a few I found, actually:
The Equality of the Races "Islam believes that all races are equal, like the teeth of a comb, no one of them has any priority over the others, neither the Arabs over the nonArabs, nor the non-Arabs over the Arabs, neither the Turks over either of them, nor any race over another, neither the white over the black, nor the black over the white. No one has any preference over the others. Priority is given to taqwa, to commitment, commitment to Islam." - Khomeini, passage/section 284
No Selling Oil to Israel and South Africa "Regarding South Africa, the situation is clear, its regime is a racist one that respects none of the humanistic values and is originally bloodthirsty and criminal. But as to the others we shall sell and export to them, but, of course, in accordance with the country’s interests and the political and economical situations." - passage 562
"Islam regards all those who believe in Allah to be brothers, and there is no separate reckoning with, say, the Arabs, a different reckoning with the non-Arabs, or a reckoning for Iran and another with another country. The reckonings which the materialistic people talk about as they are Iranians and what they should do for Iran, or others say they are Iraqis and so on, such reckonings cannot be in Islam, which wants all the world to be like a single family under a single government, a government of justice, and all individuals to be members of that family." - passage 85
Matthew Wilson
(cont.)
Armament Rivalries Threaten the Nations’ Security "But it is quite possible that one time there comes a lunatic man at the head of one of the two Powers, like Hitler or Saddam, and, because of his power-loving desire drives the world to destruction. If - Allah forbid - a war takes place between these two Powers today, they will drag the world into complete destruction." - passage 463
Nolan Perez
Evola was outspokenly against paganism and not as racist as you might believe. While the man regarded race to be a core aspect of one's spirit, he didn't see it through a lense of supremacy. Indeed he regarded much of the German work of fascist as lost.
Lincoln Jenkins
Also, Evola considered Jews as inherent spiritual enemies to his ideal worldview, no?
Whereas, as far as I've read, Khomeini did not seem to fundamentally oppose or hold animosity towards Jews as a religious group. In fact, he seemed to always be making clear that his struggle was against Zionism as an "aggressive, colonialist, expansionist, racist endeavor" enabled and protected by the West (principally U.S.A.) which committed sacrilege by falsely claiming all Jews of the world to be part of one ethno-nation rather than an ethnically diverse global religious community.
Here's some quotes I found from Khomeini's book on Palestine:
"On occasion, the Shah and his regime say they will bring in experts from Israel; we know what to do with these experts if they do bring them in. If even one Israeli . . . I'm not talking about the Jews here, no one has the right to lay a finger on the Jews in Iran, they are under the aegis of Islam and the Muslims; no one has the right to attack the Jews or the Christians who adhere to a religion revealed by one of God's prophets."
"Any kind of relationship with Israel will be severed, however, the Jews will be free to remain in Iran and live in an environment which will be freer than at the time of the Shah's rule, for Islam respects all religions."
"Question: Amongst your demands is the annihilation of the state of Israel; if this leads to Israel's destruction and victory for the Palestinians, what will be the fate of the Jews? Answer: The issue of the Jews is quite separate from that of the Zionists. If the Muslims are victorious over the Zionists, the latter will meet the same fate as the deposed Shah, however, the Muslims will do nothing to the Jews, for they are a nation like other nations, they will carry on with their lives and they will not suffer dispossession."
"We consider the Jewish community to be completely separate from the issue of Zionism and the Zionists; the latter are in no way among the people of religion. The teachings of Hazrat Moses, upon whom be peace, were divine teachings, and Hazrat Moses has been mentioned in the Qur'an more times than any other prophet." - Khomeini
Anthony Cruz
>he regarded much of the German work of fascist as lost What do you mean by this?
Lost? As in the German fascists lost their way? Or? Unsure how to interpret this.
Evola opposed German fascism then? For what reason though? Wasn't he buddy-buddy with Himmler though? And admired SS?
Jackson Rodriguez
running out of ideas for videos, cody?
Joshua Wood
I'm not cody.
Connor King
The CIA initially backed Khomeini. If you need sources, then I can provide it.
James Ward
>t. Reza Pahlavi the Second
Luis Smith
Evola wasn’t a racialist though. He devoted much of his life to studying the Orient, in fact.
Brayden Sanchez
>Also, Evola considered Jews as inherent spiritual enemies to his ideal worldview, no? no, he actually respected Jewish esotericism.
Julian Allen
Evola was a traditionalist who rejected the modernism of fascism. National Socialism is hyper modern so naturally there is a lot for a traditionalist to oppose.
Mason Thomas
Thanks for the responses.
Do you think Evola-ist Italy would have directly sent troops to support Hezbollah in Lebanon against the USA and Zionists occupiers in the 1980's, like Iran did by sending Revolutionary Guards?
Would Evola-ist Italy have adopted an absolute/non-negotiable "The Zionist Israel colonialist entity must cease to exist and all of pre-1948 Palestine must be free, from Jordan River to Mediterranean Sea" ideological/political line like the members of the Axis of Resistance (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Palestinian factions except PLO) did?
Or would Evola have remained personally neutral/don't care about Israel's existence and kept relations with the Resistance Axis strictly trade/tech/science/arms supplies only? AKA "Israel is their fight, not getting directly involved".
Or would he have attempted to play a double game out of pure self-interest, kind of like Putin's Russia today where Putin portrays himself as "Savior of Syria" and "anti-imperialist" despite maintaining close diplomatic/economic/possibly military ties with Israel and coordinating no-fly zones/partition lines with U.S.A. and meeting with Saudis and approving UN Resolutions to sanction Yemen while USA/NATO and Saudis are bombarding and besieging Yemen?
Or would Evola possibly even choose to directly help Israel instead, seeing in it some kind of kindred warrior spirit of "will to power" through colonialist military conquest? I think there are even ultra-right factions of Israelis, like Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism which made overtures to Mussolini's Italy and even offered an alliance with Nazi Germany on a "racial-totalitarian basis" back during WW2. You know, Haavara Agreement and all that.
Luis Bell
If you need sources, then I can give them. I'm neither pro-Shah or pro-IRI. I think Iran has been "finished" since the Qajars and is irredeemable.
Aaron Gonzalez
>or nor*
Anthony King
gib
>I think Iran has been "finished" since the Qajars and is irredeemable. elaborate pls
Tyler Gutierrez
BBCPersian has found recently declassified documents in US National Archive about secret plan of president Kennedy to overthrow secular government of Pahlavi in favour of Shia clergy led by Ayatollah Khomeini through a coup plot in 1963.
US gov & CIA had formed "Iran 918 Group" consisted of a several Iranian Army commanders to overthrow Shah's government if he resist any Islamic revolution. One of the group members was Mohammad-Vali Gharani who later became Iran Army's Chief-of-Staff after Islamic revolution.
Later on, Carter's administration was also becoming tired with the Shah since he was no longer being an OPEC puppet, and Carter's administration initially backed Khomeini:
It is fairly clear from the linked document and several other declassified papers that elements of the US government were actively conspiring against the Shah from the mid 1970s until his fall. The Shah kept pushing for oil price hikes at a time of economic weakness in the West, and just after the US domestic oil production peaked. With that revenue he was embarking upon ambitious development programmes. Eventually, the US managed to get Saudi Arabia to undercut the official OPEC oil price and therefore undercut the Shah. Revolution came shortly afterwards
The USA began distancing itself from Iran since William E. Simon's 1974 petrodollar deal with Saudi Arabia.
Also, on a funnier note, Carter's ambassador to UN also called Khomeini a saint
Evan Russell
The Shah had visions of grandeur, and believed that oil prices could only continue to rise and based Iran's budget on that assumption.
The Shah wanted to become independent and no longer an OPEC puppet near the end of his reign, which lead to massive expansion in military spending (based on the assumption in the budget that oil prices would never stop rising), which entailed the arrival of tens of thousands of American contractors, who inflamed anti-American tensions in Iran through their boorish behaviour.
The Shah wanted to see Iran become a great power before he died, resulting in unsustainable military spending.
Carter gave millions to Khomeini, his UN representative called him a saint, and supported him as an alternative to the Shah.
The USA constantly changes alliances whenever it is convenient and in its economic interests. This is insane. Kissingerian realpolitik needs to be abandoned for the possibility of any rapprochement.
Honor and integrity is something most Americans know nothing about.
) USA is supporting an even worse alternative than the IRI, and they are called MEK/NCRI (parent groups). They are Islamist cultists influenced by Marxism; they killed many Americans, gassed Iran's own people, and have a history of molestation and being cultish. USA supports Islamist extremists when they align with their geopolitical and economic interests.
Justin Robinson
>elaborate pls Qajars were vastly incompetent, not even ethnically Iranian, and they lost a lot of land to the British and Russians. 1800s Iran was very broken down due to the opulent lifestyle of Qajar elite. Their philistinism and gratuitous lifestyle nearly cost Iran most of its land. The Pahlavis were a Godsend in comparison, and their harshness was a necessity to push Iran into place. However, once the Shah became a bit too independent from Western influence, the CIA backed Khomeini, as I've explained above.
would an Evola Italy be pretty much Salazar's Portugal, but Italian?
Brandon Hughes
What kind of society would an Evola run Italy be like?
Economically? Politically? Education? Healthcare (would there be Western medicine or Ayurbedic/alternative/holistic instead)? Environmental policies if any? Industry? National defense policy (nukes/no nukes, expansionist, isolationist, pragmatic etc)?
