Talk:Julius Evola

Religious reconciliation?

You have failed to mention that Julius Evola before his death he did act in reconciliation to the Roman Catholic Church seeing it as a alternative to American consumerism. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As upholding tradition (Roman Catholic Church) Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide a citation from a reliable source before the article can be changed to reflect this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Source: Julius Evola:A Philosopher For The Age Of The Titans By Joscelyn Godwin

His acceptance of organised religion such as Christianity as a alternative to mass consumerism as seen in the mechanistic approach of American society. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A Book not newspaper or Journal above.

Thank You Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is a foreward by Joscelyn Godwin and can be seen discussed by Julius Evola in the book: Revolt Against The Modern World.

(see section on Christianity in the book) Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide a direct quote from the book and the page number it came from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

According to his personal physician, whom I knew, he died a pagan, with pagan rites. His attitude to the Catholic Church in his late period was purely instrumental: it was one of those institutional relics of the past which, with the rise of the post-war American global hegemony, could be cultivated as a 'useful idiot' to counteract the new imperialism.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Supposed consensus

So supposedly a "consensus" regarding the designation "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" has been established in this article. On multiple occasions people say you are not allowed to edit this part of the article or you will get blocked for "editing against consensus". Can someone link me to the (talk)pages where this consensus has been established? Schenkstroop (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's in the archives. I suggest that you do your own research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, where is this apparent 'consensus' that Evola should be known as an antisemite conspiracy theorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely well referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Evola isn't really infamous for being an 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist', so why is it in the lead? He may of made antisemitic remarks but that shouldn't be in the lead. Maybe a controversial views section might help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Given your snarky, empty, and completely useless replies, I am wondering who you are, or, more to the point, who you think you are. Evidently you think you are the boss of this article. Equally evident is your aim, which is to be sure that this article shows Evola in the worst light possible, while still nominally adhering to a factitious "objectivity". I have neither the time or the deep interest to do so, but my hope is that someone will knock you off your perch at some point soon. Pernoctus (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I see no consensus here, just strong viewpoints. Saying "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" about in the lead is in my humble view, is very misleading. branding is more in-tune with a certain nowadays strong politically emotional objectives (not consensus)and creating a straw man to fit a certain narrow narrative is not the sound WP-spririt we want. Let's have many solid sources and even more so in the more politically excitable subjects. The more academic (academically aloof) the better the source and not just political opinion contributors from easy read magazines writing to like-minded activists. Jacob Zumba (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is indeed a consensus, and the description is well sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

So you assert, emptily, without an iota of evidence or references. Pernoctus (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Evola and totalitarianism

In the Post-World War II section, the article states that "Evola attempted to dissociate himself from totalitarianism, preferring the concept of the "organic" state". While this is certainly true, the framing of this statement, particularly the inclusion of the world "attempted to" seems a bit biased. In his Autodifesa, or self-defense statement in 1951, he states that -

1. I am opposed to totalitarianism, counterposing to it the ideal of an organic, differentiated State, and considering “fascist hierarchism” as a deviation. In Orientamenti, pp. 13-14, one reads that totalitarianism represents a wrong direction and the abortion of the need for a virile and organic political unity: “Hierarchy is not hierarchism—the latter an evil that is trying to flourish in a minor mode today—and the organic conception has nothing to do with sclerotic statolatry or a leveling centralization.” I have taken an antitotalitarian position even more extensively and energetically in an article that I submit to the Court entitled “Stato organico e totalitarismo” [The Organic State and Totalitarianism], which appeared in Lotta Politica, the official organ of the MSI. I have defended the same thesis, transposed to the cultural plane, in the incriminated essay in Imperium (no. 2) where, criticizing the ideas of the writer Stending, I recognize with him that the evil from which modern culture is suffering is its fragmentation, due to the paralysis of a central, directive idea; but I oppose the totalitarian solution, in which there is not a spiritual, super-elevated, and transcendent principle, but rather the brutal political will to tyrannically enslave and unify the culture, of which we see the ultimate result in Sovietism.

2. A specifically Fascist conception was that of the so-called “ethical State” of Gentile. I have harsh words for it (Orientamenti, pp. 20-21). Some like to depict Fascism as an “oblique tyranny.” During that “tyranny” I never had to undergo a situation like the present one. As things stand in this regard, the axiom that I take from Tacitus is: “The supreme nobility of the rulers is not to be masters of slaves, but of lords who also love liberty in those who obey them” (p. 14).

Although it might be tiresome to read the whole text, I suggest you do. It is impossible to be having seen this statement, and misinterpret his anti-totalitarian stance as merely a political attempt to distance himself from fringe elements. I do believe he was genuinely opposed to it in his philosophy, and I therefore suggest the word "attempted to" to be removed to make the article less biased. Thanks Based47 (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree --Zaynab1418 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Views on class/caste

I think we should include Julius Evola's idealised "caste" or class system: lead by the King followed by other nobles (warriors and ascetics) then the bourgeoisie and, finally, at the bottom, the proletariat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 12:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A simply antisemite or not?

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke book Black Sun which is used as sources describes Evolas antisemitism as methapsycial, like that of Otto Weininger (himself a Jew). According to this book Evola rejected the chief nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg and other biological racist as views that where reductionist and materialistic. He held as Weininger, that Jewry was only a symbol for individualism and economic materialism. So, according to the only good academic source used in the Evoal WP article, he cannot be labelled as straight out/bona fide antisemite and biological racist. Furthermore, Goodrick-Clarkes Black Sun does not say Evola is a conspiracy theorist. Or maybe being just critical of Israel is just simple antisemitism? Labels - depends who's political narrative it serves... Jacob Zumba (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)* Anna Momigliano (Atlantic article) is just one journalist, a political hack, not a proper source. Good for hatchet jobs and simplistic character assassinations, not really solid, multiple WP standards.

What the hell did he do between 1922 and 1951?

Currently, there is an enormous hole in the Life section during what I'd assume to be a few fairly important years -- being, as he was, a fascist, and living in Italy in the 1930s. Presumably he did fascist things... but what were they? Surely' we have a source that can speak to this. jp×g 10:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete the section of views on caste/class?

Why do you people insist on removing anything that does not primarily concern race and gender?

He criticised other far-right thinkers for not being "aristocratic" enough and believe society was determined by the regression of castes.

I cited a primary source.