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 -  (4 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.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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.

[–]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.