What do you think of Julius Evola, do you think he is worth reading?

Shit idealist

Next

> [If the] "Mediterranean" component of the Italian man were to be rectified, the best model to follow would be that of the ancient race of Rome— the sober, austere, active style, free from exhibitionism, measured, endowed with a calm awareness of one's dignity. To have the sense of what one is and of one's value independently of any external reference, loving distance as well as actions and expressions reduced to the essential, devoid of any exhibition and cheap showmanship— all these are fundamental elements for the eventual formation of a superior type. And even if the Italian man had in common with the Mediterranean type the above-mentioned "splitting" (as simultaneous actor and spectator), this splitting should be utilized for a careful supervision of one's conduct and expressions. This supervision should prevent every primitive spontaneity; one should carefully study one's own demeanor, not with the purpose of making an "impression" on others, or with great concern for their opinion, but for sake of the style that one intends to display to oneself. The propensity toward outward appearances is easily associated with a personalism that degenerates into individualism. This is another typical negative trait of the Mediterranean soul: the tendency toward a restless, chaotic, and undisciplined individualism. Politically speaking, this is the tendency that, after asserting itself by fomenting struggles and constant quarrels, led the Greek city-states to ruin, although it had previously contributed in a positive manner to their articulated formation. We find this trait in the turbulent times of the early empire; it finally erupted in medieval Italy, degenerating into particularisms, schisms, struggles, factions, and all kinds of rivalries. And although the Italian Renaissance has splendid features, they are nevertheless problematic features that derive from this Mediterranean individualism, which does not tolerate any general and strict law of order; and valuable possibilities dissipated in purely personal positions and in the fireworks of a creativity disjoined from any higher meaning and tradition. Here the author, rather than the work itself, is at center stage.

>Thus, descending even lower, the same "Mediterranean" component is found in the contemporary pseudo-genial type, who is ever critical and always ready to uphold the opposite thesis in order to make a show of himself, being very clever in finding ways to get around an obstacle and in eluding a law. Even lower we find the maliciousness and the shrewdness (i.e., knowing how to "fool" others) that the Mediterranean type regards as synonyms for intelligence and superiority, whereas the "Roman" type would feel in this a degradation, a betrayal of one's dignity. I have discussed this attitude earlier on, when speaking of Manacorda.

>... "Talk little, do much, and be more than you appear to be"; all this points to the "Roman" style.

Men Among The Ruins

This is very good advice.

Interesting author. But if you are looking for a reactionary author he really isn't one
>If I don't like something belongs to /pol/ XDD
>>>>r/eddit

nutjob

at least hes not a blowjobber like ur mum

I haven't read anything other than misc quotes about stuff I didn't find useful or enlightening.

To his discredit also, every user that brings him up to support their argument is always a massively obnoxious faggot.

isn't being unapologetically antagonistic his whole thing?

He's one of the greatest radical reactionary thinkers. In what sense isn't he reactionary? It's a marxist term and is based on the false myth of progress, something which he most certainly does not subscribe to.

>In what sense isn't he reactionary?
In the sense that he saw everything as an unstopable cycle of things between liberalism and tradition. Also he was way more interested about indian esoterism than christian tradition which obviously puts him outside of european reactionaries

Tradition, mostly.

Please, we all know Evola belongs to the /pol/ crowd.

>In the sense that he saw everything as an unstopable cycle of things between liberalism and tradition.

And this is one of the things he said that is true.

You can also use the words chaos and order instead, and realize that both are necessary for a culture, and if you delve too deep in the one or the other you are essentially lost in ideology.

>You can also use the words chaos and order instead, and realize that both are necessary for a culture, and if you delve too deep in the one or the other you are essentially lost in ideology.
Maybe he was right but putting him in the same bag with Demaistre or Bonald seems pretty dumb to me.
>XD look I saw a meme so I know everything about the author.
Why don't you give it a shot before spaming le pol boogey man?

M A G I C M I S S I L E
A
G
I
C

M
I
S
S
I
L
E

...

A great teacher and initiate.

No, that's choking the chicken. It's quite different.

>XD look I saw a meme so I know everything about the author.
>Why don't you give it a shot before spaming le pol boogey man?
Wew lad, those are some real hot assumptions you're holding there.

kek