Polygamous

>polygamous
>thinks femininity is obviously better than 'physical' masculinity
>race doesn't exist (not in the sense we think)
>pandered to NaSocs because Italian Fascists wouldn't ascribe to his worldview that is centered around axiomatic truths only a 'few' will know
>actually thinks fascism is another profane collectivism
>criticizes war in modern times
>criticizes scientific advancement and technological advancement


Why is Evola so worshiped by the right? I read Evola and Guenon because I was very right-leaning, and I've almost read all of Evola's books (well, English translations at the least) now, and if anything it has pulled me away from politics. It definitely hasn't gravitated me toward any 'right' politics.

I want to spark up some discussion with this. How do people on the right feel Evola's worldview fits their own?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs
counter-currents.com/2014/10/julius-evolathe-worlds-most-right-wing-thinker/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Evola is to the right of fascism. Fascism is ultimately just another modern mass movement, while Evola opposes modernity itself.

What does that mean, exactly? What is the metric for 'right' in this sense?

Evola sought to combine Nietschean thought with a transcendent element, in addition to just general reactionary thought.

He was primarily interested in the warrior aristocrat of old. Have you read the works of Joseph De Maistre? You can sense a lot of similarities.

Basically, my view is that Evola attempted to combine De Maistrean thought with Nietzchean thought, perhaps throw in a bit of Neo-platonism. That's my view at least.

Whether he was "right-wing" is rather irrelevant, seeing as "left and right" were products of the French Revolution, which he considered a significant historical stepping-stone in the rise of Modernity and thereby a collapse of a Higher Tradition.

I would say he is more in favor of clear hierarchy, more aristocratic than the fascist, and thus further right.

Interesting. Would it be appropriate to consider him a monarchist, then?

I've read a little bit of Maistre's Considerations on France, but fear I lack the historical acumen to understand what he is saying, really. I've heard people get very frustrated and upset when they read Maistre's opinion, but it didn't seem to affect me much, and I attribute it to the fact that I don't know much about the historical period of the French Revolution. I feel like I need to read Thomas Carlyle's exposition on it to really feel the impact of Maistre's arguments.

He is right wing imo. It's the modern right that is not right wing.

I have a feeling I would agree with him on many points, where should I start reading with him?

Esoterically, he believed in an organic, aristocratic monarchy yes. But I'd say he was a bit more fluid in how that resulted exoterically. He was a reactionary, but he attempted to bend modernism to his ideology too. Hence why he tried to influence Fascism.

I'd recommend starting off with Edmund Burke's Reflections of the Revolution in France first desu. It's a bit more appealing to the modern mind.

A lot of people say Revolt Against The Modern World. I started reading him with Men Among The Ruins, then Ride The Tiger, then Mystery of The Holy Grail, then Revolt.

I would suggest starting with Revolt, as it is the most clearly defined exposition of his view. The book isn't really a call for any sort of revolt, it's an exposition on the metaphysical views of varying ancient Mediterranean civilizations, where he uses historical texts to delineate his Traditional principles, which are a priori categories serving as an ethos.

Regardless of political orientation, his writing is fascinating and eye-opening. He took a lot of influence from Bachofen for his methodology of revealing the principles. Bachofen wrote about the matriarchal origins of society by using comparative mythology, more-or-less. Put Bachofen's tools in the hands of a young, aristocratic reactionary and you've Evola.

Cool, I actually have a copy of it lying around here unread. I'll start with that. And I think you're right about the actual implementation of his worldview being fairly plastic, as even when he is examining traditional civilizations, he is sure to clarify the principles and ideals are real as far as they have been real or actualized in a historical way, not that the civilizations of old are to be revived in some anachronistic way

The only thing I will say about Revolt is that it's a big meal to chew on. I found it very dense, personally. Men Among The Ruins is rather polemical and defines his view in a way that is contrasted with modern ideologies, so to start, that might be more appealing. I started with that one because I was looking for political texts around the reactionary sort, and I was surprised to find his worldview was so deep and well-developed. Without Revolt and Holy Grail under your belt, you may find his references to Tradition in Men Among The Ruins a bit malnourished or needed to be expanded upon, but it's still a good starting point.

>>thinks femininity is obviously better than 'physical' masculinity

Evola privileges masculinity over femininity in almost all of his writings. Why don't you read a fucking book you retard?

"When we compare femininity with virility understood in material terms, such as physical strength, harshness, and violent affirmation, it is only natural that the woman, owing to her characteristics of sensitivity, self-sacrifice, and love--not to mention the mystery of procreation--was regarded as the representative of a higher principle; she was even able to acquire authority and to appear as an image of the universal Mother. [...] [S]ocial gynaecrocracy did not appear in effeminate but in violent and bellicose societies." Revolt Against The Modern World pg. 214-215

I have read Evola, friend. It looks like you haven't and are just projecting your own insecure notions of masculinity into his developed views. Rethink your identity.

>Evola privileges masculinity over femininity in almost all of his writings.
>almost

Kys

Dude, read what you just posted, you numbskull. He doesn't value one over the other but is making a pseudo-Nietzschean sweeping sociological statement.

You're right that he does value masculinity over femininity, but his idea of masculinity is differentiated from the idea of aggressive and oaf-like masculinity. His idea of masculinity comes from the spiritual principle of Shiva, purusha, atma, etc. the principle of pure intuition which directs substance; it's a form of self-consciousness.

I don't think you understand his methods if you think the above is merely one isolated statement and has nothing to do with his examinations. He says that while he is discussing the decline of a civilization into the Silver Age, when spiritual masculinity is no longer predominant and femininity is naturally prioritized because it is superior to degenerated masculinity e.g. aggressive and bellicose men.

Evola politics and philosophy is P retarded. He's best during angry grampa rant moments and you don't need to agree with someone to find reading them useful

Evolian-Gramscian alliance when?

Outside of mystical wank larping I don't see why I should support Evola's conclusions.

Unless I'm at the top of this return to aristocracy I'd be fucked over.

You would probably be on top of the aristocracy if you were a driving force within it. Likelihood of it occurring is rather unclear, though.

>I'd be fucked over.

How? Peasants are pre-determined to live as peasants. The organic order necessitates it. Why resist it?

It's like a rabbit who wishes to fly when living as rabbit is a perfectly good life and organically necessary for the rest of the eco-system to function.

Aristocracy isn't just "I'm rich and you're poor, therefore I should rule over you."

It's actually "I'm BETTER than you and therefore rightfully rule over you BUT I also have a responsibility towards you."

>aristocracy is I'm BETTER than you and therefore rightfully rule over you

Nope, that's Meritocracy you dolt. Pic related is Aristocracy.

>implying "merit" = actual superiority

Modern detected.

Aristocracy presumes that it's 100% guaranteed the character traits viewed by society as good will be passed down genetically from father to son.

The thing is, it's not true.

So a bunch of whimpy inbred bleeders is destined to rule?

So how do you measure superiority if not by achievement?

How did the first aristocrats become aristocracy in the first place? By merit.

le royal face

You're correct, but I don't think aristocrats of old lacked the general acumen to know that inherited positions of rule seemed counter-intuitive and ridiculous. I think they were well aware of its seeming stupidity, but they nevertheless respected the order out of tradition; and, to be fair, it sustained itself for a long time.

Ceteris paribus, I doubt we'll see another caste-by-birth system again for a long while in the West.

>tfw social infrastructure deteriorates due to in-group ideological conflict and the mongols conquer and establish a new caste system
>kali yuga ends, satya yuga begins

Correct, but I think it's a far more stable system than others.

>How do people on the right feel Evola's worldview fits their own?
By reaffirming a sense of the mystical/transcendent in the face of the materialistic void of modernity.

It's safe to say that the people on the "right" that Evola appeals to are not classical liberals, libertarians. Not even fascism of the spanish and italian persuasion is very keen to it (although OG Primo De Rivera's kind of catholicism somewhat fits). "Tradition" comes from times far before the notions of "right" and "left"

He liked the SS because he saw it as the archetypal warrior-monk order of old, so there's the link to natsoc.

by the way, 3rd position people are NOT necessarily pro-war

>How do people on the right feel Evola's worldview fits their own?
Like this.

Video:
youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs

Transcript:
counter-currents.com/2014/10/julius-evolathe-worlds-most-right-wing-thinker/

No, its their innate spiritual quality that gives them merit.

are those qualities inherited? where do they initially come from?
how do we know the descendants of the original aristocrats are as meritous as them?
if individuals of inherent greater spirit should appear, can they depose the decadent aristocrats, and if so, should they do so by force or by what means?

If the order is organic it works. If it isn't it then it doesn't work. There is no way of making the order organic. If an heroic restauration is to happen it will happen. Human values and motives have no influence on the matter.

>not moving past left-right politics
once you read these sorts of things and begin to understand them, the materialist dichotomy just looks silly.

>counter-currents.com/2014/10/julius-evolathe-worlds-most-right-wing-thinker/
wtf

if evola's aristocratic order was organic (i.e. it worked) then why doesn't it exist anymore?

I think referring to his notion of cyclical eras would be the appropriate answer here, i.e. organisms die and are born again. Not in a Spenglerian sense, but a spiritual sense. Evola sought to provide a philosophical and metaphysical foundation for a new order, but it looks like he should've been born after his time.

Because aristocrats decided to become degenerate criminals instead of upright, moral individuals like they had been of old.

Evola is concocting ideas which would never be accepted by the left.
The whole anti-modern attitude of his could only gain traction among the right, not the left. The left identifies with modernity. It considers it an unfinished project.
Also, I'd say many not-so-'traditional' people are mainly attracted to Evola not because of his right/left allegiance, but because he has a lot more interesting ideas to bring to the table than the left. Frogtwitter for example is the same. All these spin-offs and mutatations are novel in their approach to the world and bring metaphysics back into the fold. The left can refer to metaphysics by analogy and secularize it.

And I say this as a former leftist who is well-acquainted with their pantheon.
The only thing the left is able to bring nowadays are idpol liberals, who are honestly the most annoying movement the modern world has ever spawned... And the 'real' left, consisting out of a handful of intelligentsia complaining there isn't a viable revolutionary movement anymore and therefore resenting the working class just the same as liberals.

And right wingers try to appropriate Evola, but by the end of his life he has gone somewhat Heideggerian ( I think he even refers to him as being on the same frequency ) and apolitical.
So if you want original ideas, you won't find them among the left. So automatically all these other ideas tend to be magnetized by the rigth, but aren't fully so.

One of the most insightful replies in this thread. Thank you for the contribution.

So where would you say Evola's ideas inhabit in the modern world? Coopted by but not part of the right wing intellectual current?

>So where would you say Evola's ideas inhabit in the modern world?
Wherever there is a demand for metaphysics while naturalism and fedoras are the orthodoxy.

If not Evola, it's going to be somebody else interested in, or another branch of, occultism.

They might even go all the way back to Ancient Egypt like /pol/ did with Kek.

Like Ebola-chan it all begins as a meme, but then people start looking a bit deeper.

I agree, the modern world is a failed project, but it must be accelerated to truly bring change now. Perhaps, this is some huge irony, that we are all leading ourselves into doom.

Pic makes me sad.
I don't understand why so many on the left are so resistant to actual solutions in the form of focusing on problems and solutions that can be made familiar to many different people and potentially offer practical futures and actionable plans.

Modernity isn't exclusively the left's realm.

The right also believes in the quest for progress; material wellbeing as the ultimate metric of welfare. Just look at the common arguments from the capitalist camp on which they base their support: we live longer (our material bodies last more), there is less poverty (our material "needs" are met), etc. Nothing in the left-right spectrum, as economic programs, systematically criticizes the methods of production themselves. This is the same reason why environmentalism isn't a L-R issue either. Deep green people, much like traditionalists, make this comprehensive dismantling of the industrial/positivist paradigm a central philosophical point.

Both camps need their myths, an heroic underpinning to the unexcitingly sterile reality of economic struggle: the right chooses watered down tradition (conservatism) and the left chooses watered down idpol and environmentalism.

>Aristocracy isn't just "I'm rich and you're poor, therefore I should rule over you."
>It's actually "I'm BETTER than you and therefore rightfully rule over you BUT I also have a responsibility towards you."
No its by virtue of birth I occupy a position where I have a monopoly on force thereby forcing you and everyone within your class to submit while I exploit your labor.

And some how I'm meant to want this. Pretty cucky desu.

Spoken like a true modern marxist.

A modern Marxist would ignore any discussion related to class call a few random words ablist and then call a soc-dem a traitor for not voting for the neoliberal corporate shill.

...

>im meant to want this

Your desires are irrelevant. Peasants do not have adequete agency.

this desu

>Why is Evola so worshiped by the right?
Because he was a special snowflake that didn't work one day for his living.

>muh warrior aristocrat
Won't make shit done.

So he was pretty Veeky Forums then desu

>Because he was a special snowflake that didn't work one day for his living.

A bit like Marx then...

Whenever Veeky Forums makes comments like this, it's very obvious that you guys have a limited understanding of left vs. right and non-mainstream right-wing philosophy. Evola is actually about as far right as you can conceivably get. In fact, being as far right as you can conceivably get was sort of his thing.

Also, some of your examples aren't really accurate. Evola was critical of the Nazi's purely biological racism, but he wasn't in any sense an antiracist.

His definition of race was more than physical, though.

Same as Nietzsche, who always gets a free pass on this shit.

>polygamous

What? Evola was more OK with adopting and never having any woman, than polygamy.

Sounds pretty cucks to me.

Even a serf would live a better life than a "free" modern man.

The interest of the left in environmentalism is stunning. I don't understand it. In my eyes environmentalism is a topic that intuitively belongs in the realm of the right wing, excluding the more libertarian conservative streams.

Leftist ideas cannot really intersect with environmentalism. Pentti Linkola makes it rather clear, although I admit he's an extreme case to whom I shouldn't refer. Hitler picked up environmentalism before the leftists even thought about it.

What makes you think left wing ideals and environmentalist ones are totally incompatible?

Not being critical, just curious,

America perverts and inverts everything. Here liberals are associated with the left and "big government", libertarians are associated with the right, conservatives don't care about environmental conservation, many anarchists are somehow capitalists too (as if that makes any sense), and so on. The conservative tradition in England makes much more sense.

>intuitively
Here's what I find intuitive: do you care about a particular issue? Vote for me!

The "left" will appropriate any cause they can get their hands on, leaving what remains to the "right."

America is basically a third-world country given the luxury of being a global hegemon.

He's worshipped because he's spooked af

The libertarian ancap thing is only because Liberal was a term that was usurped by Progressives, who are now going back to that label.

>In my eyes environmentalism is a topic that intuitively belongs in the realm of the right wing,
How? The extractivist nature of capitalism, infinite economic growth in a world of finite resources, necessarily negates conservation.

Anarchists and third positionists are the only people who can make a claim to legitimate environmentalism.

The left has new ideas AND writers who are critical of modernity. John Millibank for example does both things very well.

Also, how can you read something like Deleuze and think all it amounts to is "idpol" shit is baffling

How the fuck can you say the man who regularly published 500+ pages books with autistic amounts of graphs and data never work? Research is work, what's not work is Evola's Nietzsche + Shurato fanfiction

It isn't. AnCaps very clearly state that they are anarchists, they just don't see how capital is a mechanism of coercion (because they are absolutely retarded)

I was talking more about libertarians coopting the liberal label.

But on the Ancap thing it's very clear that they are working with different definitions from you, and maybe the autistic debates between free marketers and commies would be better off if they acknowledged that.

I've seen people talking about how the left "apropriates" shit itt, but honestly, the right wing is a cesspit of plagiarism. Even the breibart crowd, these guys are just doing situationsim / surrealist happenings, and in a very poorly handed way tbqh (looking at Milo and Sam Hyde)

the members of the group called the alt right today do not believe themselves to be participating in politics, but in new mysticism. evola is appealing to them because his revolt against modernity carries with it a concomitant rejection of modernist class politics—of which we are today inheritors.

90% of postmodern philosophy is senseless garbage.

Leftists appropriated things earlier, like Marx's taking and doing a paint job on the Class Theory of the French Liberal school.

what seems more likely: that countless volumes of philosophy interested in questions of embodiment, politics, and psychology produced since 1968 are all nonsensical, or that you alone are too dim to grasp them? could it really be the case that you have seen something that countless scholars interested in this branch of philosophy have missed? or is it perhaps more likely—and perhaps even true—that you're an idiot dismissing things you haven't read because they are difficult and challenging to your worldview?

>Fourier
>Proudhon
>>anything but loosely constructed idealism

Postmodern philosophy is too self conscious about historicity and immersed in a cesspool of desperately attempting to appear intelligent (academia). Too often, everything is made into a question, and it is made impossible to say anything. The end result is nauseating.

care to cite any examples of what you're talking about? because you sound like you're just spouting a lot of drivel.

>you sound like you're just spouting a lot of drivel
It sounds like you get upset reading drivel, which is surprising because you like postmodern philosophy, which is drivel

Evola often put forwards chivalry values and the meme of the valorous farmboy becoming knight because merit doesn't come out of nowhere

All succesful aristocratic systems are meritocratic and keep the blood of their elite powerful by accepting the best elements of other caste
Example: the jews have collectively better IQ because the gifted plebs could study to the top and marry into elite families

Deleuze, Derrida are senseless garbage, bad poetry, word salad, vaporous concepts, verbal masturbation
Foucault is a bit more serious but he's still a tenured well-off hedonist three layers of reality away from the common pleb

Give me some examples of this, my boy. Oh right, you won't, because you don't read, you're just some /pol/ memer trying to end "degeneration" by shitposting your days away while your family asks where it all went wrong.