Weekly Discussion Thread. 10/16/21-10/22/21.

submitted by send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

I am taking questions about Evola, if anyone is interested. There has been little opportunity to discuss his works on this sub, but I can offer some answers here.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Assuming you can divide the alt right up into a few groups: groypers (trad cath), neo reactionaries (barely alt right), southern nationalists, alt right libertarian, TRS naz bol squad, BAP classists, Uncle Tedittes, and neo nat socs what group do you think Evola would support? What group do you think he'd criticize?

Also are there any white nationalist writers and speakers in the last 70 years or so that most closely mimics Evola's ideas? Bowden? Pierce? Duke? Metzger? Yockey? I don't know much about Evola so I'm trying to figure out how he fits into modern white nationalist belief structure (if there even is a consistent modern white nationalist belief).

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Evola deeply valued inner strength, personal autonomy, sobriety and anti-materialism. I believe that he would support whoever can live up to those ideals. It is very difficult for me to think of practical examples, since he has criticised many things and every political subculture I know of today subscribes to at least one element he would object to.

Also are there any white nationalist writers and speakers in the last 70 years or so that most closely mimics Evola's ideas? Bowden? Pierce? Duke? Metzger? Yockey? I don't know much about Evola so I'm trying to figure out how he fits into modern white nationalist belief structure (if there even is a consistent modern white nationalist belief).

I can't think of anyone that holds the same ideas. From the ones you named, I think Bowden and Yockey probably come closest. Bowden had actually drawn on Evola's work and even given lectures on Evola, but to my knowledge he was most interested in the Nietzschean element. I have not read Yockey's Imperium, but as far as I am aware, Evola had a mixed opinion on it. Yockey's views are centred in the ideas of culture, civilisation and ontology, so he comes a lot closer to Evola's anti-materialism than most, but he still does not affirm Evola's transcendent values.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is what Evola wrote about Yockey /u/send_nasty_stuff. Chapter 16 of Post-War Reflections, page 274.

I agree that Bowden and Yockey are most similar to Evola too.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Assuming you can divide the alt right up into a few groups: groypers (trad cath), neo reactionaries (barely alt right), southern nationalists, alt right libertarian, TRS naz bol squad, BAP classists, Uncle Tedittes, and neo nat socs what group do you think Evola would support? What group do you think he'd criticize?

I think he would have been more positive towards GRECE/continental New Right. Then maybe TRS/NatSoc but he'd probably think they're doomed and wasting their time particularly with mass/populist organising etc something similar to the Richard Spencer view of NJP, the rest I don't think he'd have any interest in at all.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for your insights. Everytime I try to read the guy I get lost. So I'm basically doomed to learning about him through third parties.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This website is great, his articles are generally way easier to understand than his books.

Men Among the Ruins is quite easy to read too and is his most relevant book politically.

His two articles about the SS 'The SS, Guard & Order of the Revolution of the Swastika' and 'A Castle of the Order' are great and they're not really complicated.

I haven't read it yet but I think the 'Fascism and Tradition' book is probably good and somewhat digestible too, it's a compilation of his books, essays, and articles describing and critiquing the fascist movements. If you can't find it online I can upload it for you. If you want it just let me know.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks Markimus. I will check that stuff out.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Did he believe that the decline of the west was inexorable or did he think it was possible to stop it?

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Evola was not a historical determinist, so unlike Spengler he did not hold the view that a given civilisation will always, without fail, experience decline. He believed that if a civilisation passively exhausts its energies, it will continually decline until its eventual collapse, but he also believed that decisive action can both halt and reverse decline. For example, he believed that Italian fascism raised Italy from a merchant caste nation to a warrior nation. He acknowledged that it was possible for the West to rally and raise itself, but in the post war period he became very pessimistic and considered that a highly unlikely option. He thought that successful political action was almost completely impossible and suggested that preparing to establish a new civilisation after the collapse of the current one may be a more worthwhile use of effort. I should note, however, that the course of action he suggested has nothing to do with moving to the countryside to farm and starting a family or anything else along these lines.

In short, Evola thought that the decline of the West can be stopped and that the West can even return to greatness, but only on the condition that Westerners raise themselves and their civilisation through their own efforts. He did not believe that Westerners had either the desire or the capacity to do that, however.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

How does this go along with Revolt Against the Modern world? I got the impression from that book that he thought we were just in the Kali Yuga and there's nothing we can do except Ride the Tiger IE find people who still have Personality and try to preserve whatever we can until Ragnarok or whatever name you want to give the transitional period into the next age.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I haven't read all of Revolt, but I think it's a case of him examining different options best suited for different people in different books. Men Among The Ruins is basically a political manual, it's aimed at those devoted to politics in the post war period and he definitely outlines the possibility for political action and even for mass politics there, although he covers all this in less than two chapters. Ride The Tiger, on the other hand, is intended for people who in a more normal era may have preferred to be involved with politics, but who may not necessarily care to do so today. I am not sure how I would classify Revolt. There have been three different editions of Revolt, the first one published in the inter war period and the last one in the 70s, so it's a bit difficult to judge the intentions behind the book.

I think your interpretation is correct. As far as Evola was personally concerned, the Kali Yuga had to exhaust itself first before it could be ended. My understanding is that this was not a doctrinal view, however. In theory, it would be possible to reverse the decline through diligent and precise effort. Evola could not see this happening because the intellectual and moral confusion was already very great in his own time and the "current" of the Kali Yuga was only growing stronger. He still offered his analysis for political action in case there are people who want to pursue it, though. To an extent, the political course he suggests can also be synthesised with the idea of riding the tiger. One of the most major suggestions he makes is that a future political order should devise its own ascetic "subculture" and style in order to offer up an alternative, inspiring worldview to Europe and attract more high quality people to a cause and an organisation at the same time. This organisation, its prestige and the popularity of its worldview would continually grow, and eventually its leadership would intervene politically at the right time, when the West hits rock bottom and is about to collapse. Personally, I think his essay on the Beat Generation has to do with this set of ideas, so it makes for a good complementary read.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You got a link to the Beatnik essay?

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I read it from a book, I believe it was The Bow And The Club. If I recall correctly, the actual title of the essay was The Youth, The Beats, and Right-Wing Anarchists. I am pretty sure this specific essay is popular outside of the book though. You may be able to find it on Counter-Currents, since when people post Evola links, that's typically where they're from.

I went to reread the essay just now though and it's not the way I remember it. I think Evola wrote two separate essays on the Beats, so it's possible I've got the wrong one or that I was just generally mistaken. This essay looks at the Beats with the aim of discovering the meaning this type of worldview can have on a personal level, rather than examining the Beats as a movement and a symbol. The point I wanted to make earlier was that for Evola, politically the best way forward was a movement which is both a political force and a symbol. The Beats essay is good, but it does not make such an argument or even focus on offering a reference point like I thought it would.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The point I wanted to make earlier was that for Evola, politically the best way forward was a movement which is both a political force and a symbol.

So combining subcultures that represent an ideal with politics? Like Fascism with Futurism and NS with the Volkisch movement?

I've also long considered this an essential element and the alt right with fashwave, leading all online culture etc seemed to have the potential for this but nowadays it seems impossible for an organic/grassroots subculture to be mainstreamed.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So combining subcultures that represent an ideal with politics? Like Fascism with Futurism and NS with the Volkisch movement?

I think Futurism was more of an intellectual movement and Volkisch nationalism a mass movement. What I am thinking of is closer to having a group of people whose public image and style immediately brings to mind a sense of seriousness and transcendent values, similar to how seeing a monk immediately brings to mind ideas of monastic life and ascesis. I think my understanding of this idea actually comes from another one of Evola's essays, Orientations, which should definitely be on Counter-Currents.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah I see, you mean specifically an ascetic order as part of the movement. I would like to see this but I feel like it can only exist as part of a religious movement, which we don't have and which would have no mass appeal if we did anyway. I think that kind of thing doesn't have much potential today.

I think the furthest something along this line can take is simply communication between different nationalist individuals and cells/chapters to develop ideas. Maybe stuff like guys meeting to mountaineer together or other similar activities, but I can't really imagine groups of guys detaching from the world to live together communally and whatnot.

What kind of form do you think it could take today? The best I can imagine is a group that takes initiates from various nationalist organisations and requires them to pass certain tests. But what would be the ends to this? What 'esoteric' knowledge would be imparted on them? We have no religious/transcendent path for them to be dedicated to, it would just be akin to networking or being part of something that seems cool or something.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I should note, however, that the course of action he suggested has nothing to do with moving to the countryside to farm and starting a family or anything else along these lines.

If you know, what did he suggest then? Or is your answer to this in the subsequent paragraph?

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Evola thought that since today biological continuity no longer implies spiritual continuity and that since even the children of good parents can end up becoming radlib consoomers, the priority should be to help organise, educate and prepare young people who are already oriented towards Tradition. The goal of that would be to pass down certain knowledge, values and worldview until a time when these things can serve as the basis for a new civilisation.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In short, Evola thought that the decline of the West can be stopped and that the West can even return to greatness, but only on the condition that Westerners raise themselves and their civilisation through their own efforts.

He did not believe that Westerners had either the desire or the capacity to do that, however.

That is a very surprising claim. Do you have a quote of what he said specifically?

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I assume you are referring to the last line. I cannot offer you an exact quote or source, but basically Evola thought that in the post war period Westerners had exchanged the idea of great causes for cheap consumer goods and a comfortable bourgeois existence. Among those few Westerners who had still not given up on all higher interests, Evola identified another problem. This next part is something I read from Revolt Against the Modern World recently, although I can't remember the exact chapter. To paraphrase, he said that he did not think it was possible to find even a single Westerner today capable of reacting against or even fully understanding anything more than a single aspect of the modern world. There were people who reacted against consumerism or people who reacted against anti-nationalism, but there were no people who could understand and react to the full depth of the problem as a whole. Evola also had a low opinion of the forms that reaction had taken in his day, namely the publication of pamphlets and party programs. The lack of interest in the inner dimension and the lack of attempts at inner revolution doomed political reaction to a fate of transience, ineffectiveness and counter-productive integration in the world of bourgeois politics.

In other words, for Evola, the post war period presented a problem of lack of numbers, lack of interest, lack of character, lack of understanding and lack of appropriate action.

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Could you explain Evola's affection for secret societies and occult orders? I'm not well-read in Evola and have had this question for a while

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

He had none. Evola believed that exclusive, elitist orders were the only way to preserve traditional wisdom in its pure form and protect it from vulgarisation or deliberate malicious and opportunistic distortions. However, already in his time there were no such legitimate organisations left. He was strongly opposed to Masonic, Theosophic, Anthroposophic and Ariosophic currents because of their dubious or explicitly anti-traditional character. He also disliked modern occultism for the same reasons - he thought modern occult writers had a deeply muddled, confused and inverted understanding of spirituality.

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Now that's interesting, and it lines up with what I do know about him. Did he have a desire to restore esoteric orders of some form? Where should I go to read more about this?

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He has discussed the idea of the Order in different texts from different perspectives. Men Among The Ruins offers a more political and practical interpretation of that concept. For a historical view, The Mystery of the Grail examines chivalric orders, initiatic military orders (The Templars) and their mythos. As to restoring properly spiritual orders, Evola would have certainly greatly approved of this, but there are many difficulties associated with achieving something like that.

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks, dog. Your other posts about Evola have been very helpful as well. If I have something else I'll hop in again, this thread has been great.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're welcome.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why was Crowley an exception? I remember reading an article Evola wrote about Crowley that was positive. But when I look at the stuff Crowley was doing it seems extremely cringe and degenerate, not at all what I'd expect Evola to be supportive of.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have not looked into Crowley too deeply for the same reason you mentioned, I just can't imagine finding anything useful or constructive in his work. As far as I understand it, Evola somewhat approved of Crowley, with certain reservations, because he judged that Crowley had successfully attained valid spiritual knowledge through his efforts. There can also be a degree of difference and contradiction between form and substance in occultism, so it's possible that even if the form of Crowley's practice was more on the degenerate end, that same practice may have carried a different and deeper meaning for him. You could probably look for some of Evola's explanations of the left hand path, since that might be useful in explaining the situation with Crowley, who I assume was following left hand path principles. Evola goes over the left hand path in his book on Tantric Yoga and also in other texts, although I don't remember any titles off the top of my mind. If I had to give a quick summary, the best way to do it would probably be to say that abnormal left hand path practices are intended to break the continuity of normal human experience and open the person up to new and higher perspectives. Some of those practices can come across as really degenerate, but are approached with entirely different intentions, mindset and aims than an actual degenerate would approach them with.

Again, I can't speak about Crowley, but I suspect that his case probably boils down to something like this.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah this was my general impression too, I didn't know about the left hand right hand path stuff though. Interesting stuff, kinda reminds me of the distinction Evola talks about for the fully initiated Templars in Mystery of the Grail. He says they would have to insult the cross, deny jesus was a prophet but rather was an ordinary man who died because of his mistakes etc. These seem very 'left hand path' for a Christian Order.

The section I'm referring to is page 127 in that book by the way. I haven't read that whole book too, only that particular chapter because I was curious about Templar-Assassin relations.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah this was my general impression too, I didn't know about the left hand right hand path stuff though. Interesting stuff, kinda reminds me of the distinction Evola talks about for the fully initiated Templars in Mystery of the Grail. He says they would have to insult the cross, deny jesus was a prophet but rather was an ordinary man who died because of his mistakes etc. These seem very 'left hand path' for a Christian Order.

That's the way I understood that part as well. With the normal way of looking at things shattered, the Templar initiate is forced to radically reinterpret the meaning of his efforts and spiritual growth.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Fascism was rightist but also modernist, so it had some traditional elements but was not a traditionalist state.

    Evola called himself a superfascist as in he thought fascism was a watered down version of traditionalism with some traditional elements. Thus if it was 'superfascism' it would just be a fully actualised traditionalism, as traditionalism would be hierarchically above fascism according to the orientation of his principles.

    It would be like untermensch, mensch, and ubermensch. Untermensch would be liberalism and communism as degenerate soulless modern states, fascism would be mensch as a man that still has some traditional elements and ubermensch would be the the fully actualised Evolian traditionalist state.

    I disagree with this but this is the kind of model he was working with.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Mark already wrote a very good response to this, there is not much else I could add.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I know he was influenced by Nietzsche, but did he consider himself a Nietzschean?

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think he may have been a Nietzschean in his youth, before he encountered Traditionalism. Some critics also distinguish between the rest of the Traditionalist School and Evola, whom they claim is too much of a Nietzschean and therefore not a real Traditionalist. Evola, however, did not consider himself a Nietzschean, because he had major disagreements with Nietzsche on materialism and Nietzsche's morality doctrine. Evola criticised Nietzsche for failing to go "beyond good and evil" and reestablishing a new "good" and a new "evil". He also considered the Overman as another surrogate for God which could have no place in a doctrine that aims to overcome nihilism. Still, Evola also shared a lot of common ground with Nietzsche - an appreciation for aristocratic values, inner strength, action and self-overcoming. Evola had a very high opinion of Nietzsche and his thought, which is why he used it as the basis for Ride The Tiger.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Wasn't Evola quite an active and influential part of the dadaists and the futurists? I'd love a bit more info on that.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    He discusses both of those things in his autobiography, The Path of Cinnabar, if you are interested. He was indeed involved in Dadaism and in fact some of his Dadaist paintings are still exhibited in Italian museums. Evola explained that in the post war period, Dadaism was a form of radical revolt against bourgeois civilisation and its sanitised artistic and social norms. The nonsense art of Dada was held up as a mirror for the nonsense world of the bourgeoisie, who had debased every higher value and every aspect of life. As to the Futurists, he very much did not get along with them. Again in the Path of Cinnabar, he quotes Marinetti as having said to him: 'Your ideas are farther from mine than those of an Eskimo'. Evola for his part thought that the Futurists were too obsessed with technology, strong sensation and vulgar violence to have any real insights.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Very interesting. Thank you.

    One more question: How would you describe his attitudes towards Christianity? I think it was in a Bowden lecture I heard Bowden say that Evola had called himself at one time a 'Catholic Pagan' which I always found interesting.

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Personally, I have not seen him refer to himself in that way. I have seen a lot of his writings on Christianity, though. Generally speaking, he did not like it. Still, he was willing to acknowledge the value of all traditional elements of Christianity and openly stated that if the Catholic Church was to again endorse the Syllabus, he would support it and consider it an important ally. However, he lived long enough to see Vatican II and was very pessimistic about the ability of the church to play a positive role. His opinion of Protestantism was even lower.