Johnny Dangerous wrote:I don't think you really understand what Evola was politically, or what fascism is culturally, perhaps not even that fascism itself begins largely as a cultural movement, in specific circumstances..so the talk of "like the Roman Empire" is nonsensical. This is what facists claim..but it is not true, ironically the desire to politically bring about a return to a mythical past is as modern a trend as Communism. You assume people are just making him a pariah, or rejecting his ideas out of some knee jerk reaction. He was not incidentally fascist, people like him WERE the cultural wing of fascism. Even today he is considered by a chunk of the far right to be one of the cultural go to guys, there are whole albums by right wing bands dedicated to him and celebrating things like Men Among The Ruins.. The fact that some fascists didn't like him is in no way evidence to the contrary if you know the history of fascism.
I do understand what Evola was politically because I have read all of his works in English (except his short pamphlet on Taoism.) Can you say the same? Evola was critical of fascism and wrote critical works of fascism. He was involved in fascism culturally because he wanted to guide and mold fascism into the traditional order, i.e. wanted to transform the fascist movement into something else. Himmler kept a dossier on him which saw him as a threat, saying he was a Roman who wished for the return of the old aristocracy and order. Whether fascists are inspired by him or not is of little consequence to his actual views. Fascism is a modern ideology and Evola had disdain for the modern world, seeing the modern world as the height of Kali Yuga and the actual opposite of the traditional order, especially of the ancient past, which is what he admired and based his views on.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:I agree that far left ideology has a ton of blood on it hands as well, but you are either being disingenuous about Evola's ideas and their connection to fascism, or you have simply bought into his arguments without looking at the larger political context they came from.
I am apolitical these days as my aspirations in this life are entirely spiritual. Getting caught up in the emotions that go with politics doesn't go well with what I want to achieve in this life. That said, I don't look at fascism as any worse or more evil than the far-left or modern liberal democracies despite that opinion being heresy to the modern religion of political correctness. Indeed, the traditional values of the fascist regimes, even in if their tendency was to the extreme, are preferable to me to modern values. If I were political, I'd be a traditional monarchist and supporter of the old order like Evola, Cortes, de Maistre, etc. over a modern liberal-democrat of Communist/Marxist any day.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:In short, just being a "traditionalist" does not make one a fascist, but once you start holding these views of going back in time, and wishing to bring about a violent change in the social order to re order society back to a mythical golden age.
If you read Evola's writings, he never believed that through effort, violent or non-violent, one could reorder society back to the golden age. He wrote entire books putting forth that view. He was a firm believer in the metaphysical doctrine of ages and in such a view no amount of human effort can change the natural law of cyclical time and decline. Evola believed that positive action could only be achieved within a small spiritual elite through the practice of ascetic values and through spiritual awakening. From the concluding chapter of his book "The Doctrine of Awakening":
We think it possible that should the course of history, in spite of appearances, not deteriorate further, this may perhaps be due, less to the efforts and direct action of groups of men and leaders of men, than to the influences proceeding, through the paths of the spirit, from the secret realizations of a few nameless and remote ascetics, in Tibet or on Mount Athos, among the Zen, or in some Trappist or Carthusian cloister of Europe. To an awakened eye, to an eye capable of seeing with the sight of one on the Further Shore, these same realizations would appear as the only steady lights in the darkness, as the only peaks emerging, calm and sovereign, above the seas of mist down in the valleys. Every true ascetic realization becomes inevitably transformed into a support—an invisible one, but for all that nonetheless real and efficacious—for those who, on the visible plane, resist and struggle against the forces of an obscure age.