Talk:Julius Evola

❧

Wikipedia

Betterment of Article

The first part of the article the intro, is, rather adequately done, legit scholars are cited with relevant comments of analytical kind...this is good (given wikipedia's politicization milieu), good acurate responsible quotes/assessments are taken from real academics, and ideally, every section of the article should be at least maintaining the bare-mininmum of scholasticism in the introduction...

Goodrick-Clarke's opinion/asssessment is notable sure, but needs to be phrased more concisely, intelligibly, intelligently.

I am not sure Bannon is as deep a sort of 'secret evolian' as the little statement in art suggests, but, if the ideologic connection is actually there, LET US SCIENTIFICALLY SOURCE (no propaganda rags!) AND EXPLICATE, accordingly! - Bannon's supposed connection with Evola, ideologically, IF SUBSTANTIALLY REAL as ostensibly presented, SHOULD BE CONCISELY, INTELLIGENTLY DESCRIBED, SUBSTANTIATED, contextualized (if ideo-connexion is minor, this should be at least indirectly conceded, let us stay apolitical, take the high ground).

      • Let us not, in 'presentist hysteria', insert our American-centric political concerns about elections and Trump, who Bannon indeed worked with in his first Pres term, allow decreasing quality of article: if Bannon discoursed on Evola, CITE-SOURCE ACCORDINGLY; if real and relevant, this info should be meticulously sourced, given contextual depth and referenced (VIA ACTUAL RESPECTABLE ACADEMIC SOURCES) appropriately.***

While evola SHOULD NOT be presented as anything but the self-described idosyncratic, anti-fascist Super-Fascist he was, we should avoid sensationalism, oversimplism, propaganda-like knavery and be more objective and intelligent in what is chosen in certain sections of the article, not pretend Evola had ties where or when he did not, or pretend or suggest Evola did something, he actually did not...

The 'new order' terrorist area of the article suffers from serious imbalance, lack of nuance and simply oozes a tawdry low-journalism stink, forgive this user; section is lowered by quasi-sensationalist, quasi-partisan tone and lack of dispassionate prioritization of cited material. LET US NOT HIDE EVOLA'S HISTORICAL ROLE IN EMERGENCE OF ITALIAN FAR-RIGHT TERRORISTIC ENTITIES - LET US ALSO BE TRUTHFUL, AND NOT SUGGEST TO THE READER, INDIRECTLY, EVOLA HE HIMSELF, AUTHORIZED OR PERSONALLY WAS PLANNER OF TERRORIST BLOODBATHS ETC. Responsible historiography, tells us, HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE SENSE ARTICLE SEEMS TO SUGGEST - AS SOME SORT OF SHADOWY UNOFFICIAL "GENERAL." Evola is involved in the sense of his PHILOSOPHY, in terms of history, etc., INSPIRING INDEPENDENT ACTORS, to their own (sometimes evil) actions. That is how Evola is involved in the neo-fascist terrorism of Italy - can we not write with intelligence, clarity and NUANCE any longer? PRIOTIZE MATERIAL JUDICIOUSLY. DO NOT NEGLECT NECESSARY NUANCE. Please editors, try to balance this out. Prioritize smartly, do not defame article subjects, personalities, in sneaky fashion. Only factuality please. Be academic, in the noble Alexandrian and neo-Platonist sense...

Suggestions for improvement from a nonentity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4700:4D:4920:9967:BDF9:AA37 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Case point example: Richard Drake is cited stupidly as supposedly arguing, Evola advocated, with no qualifications or any limitations, "terrorism." I have the cited material by Drake and this is NOT actually what Drake states or suggests, if you read the writing piece (low-quality work for Drake, incidentally for whatever reason: the polemical nature is clear, reducing piece's worth), if you read the polemical piece in fitting holistic intelligent fashion. If editors want to claim Drake stated this, they can put Drake's own words in the article, but the COMPLEXITY of Drake's words, not a surprise given the COMPLEXITY of Evola, does not accord with the words and statement in article, "EVOLA SUPPORTED TERRORISM AS ABSOLUTE FACT, DER"... Evola discussed the inner existential military orientation, and Drake discusses how this, inter-relates to actual historic terrorist events, the meaning and question being, Does Evola's stance of apolitiae and promotion of seemingly guerrilla-like resistance to modern decay, arising from such existentialist apolitia, equal in linear fashion, incitement of terrorism? Drake's words might possibly be able to be interpreted in different ways, but Drake did not just outright say, as the article suggests, "EVOLA WAS A FOMENTOR OF TERRORISM." Irresponsible scholarship!

If Wikipedia is going to be so unbalanced, do the right thing and tell the audience Evola, abused legally by left-wing judicial figures, WENT TO ACTUAL TRIAL FOR DRAKE'S SUPPOSED CLAIM - VIZ., EVOLA WAS SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM - AND IN TRIAL IN RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, WAS COMPLETELY ACQUITTED AND EVOLA MADE A MOCKERY OF HIS PERSECUTORS, IN THEIR BASELESS IDIOTIC, POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED CLAIMS. Is not this episode covered in the English trans. of "Men Among the Ruins"...? Evola HUMILIATED those who claimed he supported terrorism, quoting Dante's De Monarchia, etc. etc., RECEVING NO NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT OF THE SLIGHEST KIND WHATSOEVER, TOTALLY BLEMISH-FREE JUDIICALLY. Why can't wikipedia be trans-personally faithful to actual reality?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4700:4D:4920:9967:BDF9:AA37 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this from the article, is the ABSOLUTE MOST, a responsible source can say about "EVOLA AND TERRORISM":

Wolff wrote: "The debate around his 'moral and political' responsibility for terrorist actions perpetrated by right-wing extremist groups in Italy between 1969 and 1980 began as soon as Evola died in 1974 and have not yet come to an end."

Anything more than that in defamatory, distortive language, is hollow, false. The above is the absolute extreme-most, without sinking into propagandism, etc., one can state RESPONSIBLY, regarding "EVOLA AND TERRORISM." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4700:4D:4920:9967:BDF9:AA37 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Evola and Axis Intelligence-Agencies

Evola's work consisted of examining confiscated occultist writings of various sorts (anthroposophic, masonic, etc.), gathered by the SS, in one of Himmler's schizo-mimetic unofficial divisions, whose task was assessing the potential 'anti-Germanism' in occult material. There was nothing notable here, truthfully. It was a cover and 'thank you' from the Germans, so he could escape certain insalubrious situations and exist in their protection, for his support of Germany, and also because Germany viewed Evola as useful, as translator and cohesion-building personage, in relation to Fascist Italy and Hitler's Germany. Masonic drivel mostly, of most generic and tedious kind. Again: The Germans wanted to repay him for his support of the Third Reich, and keep Evola alive to reinforce Salo Republic, and Evola was well-educated, and knew both Italian and German. Nothing melodramatic or shocking or satanic here, honestly. The whole job was a way to keep him connected to the Germans and keep him alive (ideally). Evola himself, just as with the 'terrorism' nonsense, was not he himself doing anything even remotely James Bond like in this 'capacity' (and this was again, a 'cover' reward for his loyal support). No violence, no terrorist-like barbarism.

The closest Evola got to 'supporting' actual violence in substantial sense, if people want to know, was in the very last years of the Salo Republic, where he specifically wrote (hastily) certain notes, a pamphleet or two for those Italians who decided to fight alongside Germany, including the Italian Waffen SS corps - but even here, he himself did not participate in violence or terrorist-like atrocity, and in said little writings, merely encouraged Italians not in love with Allied Forces to keep up the fight. End of story, sensationalism defeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4700:4D:4920:9967:BDF9:AA37 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

some structural thoughts on the article

Ignoring some of the flavourful dialogue from the IP above and any specific comments on his ideology, this article feels like it could be brought up to a GA or FA standard with just a little bit of a push. Some thoughts:

  • The article currently intertwines his life with his philosophy and work. This I feel makes it very difficult to read if you just want a summary of what he did without going through a summary of his various ramblings. Much of what he actually did is split across "Politics", "Personal life" and "Philosophy" sections; a seperate "Career" section following Early Life (or perhaps even that as a subsection of a "Biography" including both that and Early Life) would make the article flow better.
  • Is there really that distinct of a line between his politics and his philosophy? I mean, he's a political philosopher, and the current Politics section is dripping with philosophy and vice versa. When the biographical elements are taken out (except for when they pertain to his ideology changing over time), it seems like they could be merged.
  • "Written works" and "Works" as seperate sections is confusing to me - maybe these could be combined, with the latter as a subsection of the former (and/or renamed "bibliography"?
  • Influence is messy. Atm it's just a bunch of "This obscure fascist organization thinks he was pretty cool!" on and on and on. With someone as uh, impactful as Evola, I feel we can use the sources to make broad-stroke coverage of his influence without naming specific organizations or individuals beyond very very important and influential ones - Dugin and Eco are probably worth mentioning still, for instance.
  • Like 75% of the "X scholar said Y" and quotes can be removed, IMO. For most of this stuff, it's something multiple sources will have covered, or else its not due weight.
  • We need to make sure SFNs are consistently used - there shouldn't be random works floating around the notes section, outside of the works cited.
  • Connected with quote overuse, I think we can drop some of the direct quotes and citations from him; secondary scholars will put these in better context than himself. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ideological propaganda and caricature

This whole article is seriously misrepresentative and misleading. It subtly frames everything along the lines of a very specific narrative prevalent in contemporary academic circles; Everything is filtered through an implicit ideological bias that reduces him to a caricature of that “evil Nazi wizard”, which makes it impossible to engage with his ideas on their own terms.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and factual, but this article fails that standard. It treats his philosophy as secondary to his political views (which themselves are oversimplified), rather than as a complex and distinct body of work that stands on its own terms. Anyone who’s actually read his work can see it’s not wholly reducible to his political philosophy. We don’t do this with someone like Heidegger, as this would be laughable scholarship, therefore we shouldn’t do that with Evola either lest we abandon epistemic rigour and objectivity for ideology.

The subtle bias and epistemic corruption implicit in every sentence of this article makes it read like a disingenuous hit-piece instead of a serious, objective representation of Evola’s work and ideas. Alexander Nigma (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased for the mainstream academia. Take it or leave it, it's part of the package.
He was a guy who peddled reactionary platitudes dressed up in pompous mystical language. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
This sort of uncritical oversimplification is exactly what’s wrong with this article; you’re falling into the exact pattern/bias I am calling out. This very interpretation is utter misinformation.
When we present Plato, Hegel, the Neoplatonists, and other “mystical”philosophers, we try to present their ideas as objectively as possible, trying to do them justice, even if we may not agree with or understand them fully. The only reason we don’t do this with Evola is because of the collective “moral-complexes” that developed in elite and intellectual circles after WWII, which make us see his whole philosophy through a very specific lens, emphasizing the political aspect of his thought at the detriment of an objective perspective.
Judging a philosopher’s work wholly based on their political involvement is fallacious and not proper methodology. As I said, we don’t do this with someone like Heidegger, and there’s nothing that justifies doing so with Evola either.
“Peddled reactionary platitudes dressed up in pompous mystical language.” No, collapsing the entirety of his thought into the political while dismissing the metaphysical is utterly disingenuous. He was part of a very real tradition, rooted in Western Esotericism and Idealism, which can’t simply be dismissed “positivist” style if our aim is epistemic integrity and accuracy. His ideas deserve to be thoughtfully and rigorously engaged with and represented like that of any other thinker, not commited to epistemic reductionism and dogmatic dismissal. This sort of ideological attitude is the same epistemic problem that plagues dogmatic religious institutions and political debate; it has no place in serious intellectual discourse. Alexander Nigma (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
He mastered an esoteric jargon, so kudos to him for that. But stripped of that jargon, his own conclusions are boring. You're assuming he had metaphysical depth, which is by no means proven. About Wikipedia serving "the elites": WP:RGW.
The jargon he uses is revolutionary; his ideas are not. It's like saying that elaborate stage props will mask the fact that the actors are poor players. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
You’re not actually engaging with my arguments; you’re reiterating the same points, rooted in the same biases, with no shred of good faith in trying to reach epistemic accuracy or truth.
This level of disingenuousness is utterly shameful. Alexander Nigma (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
In order to repeat myself: Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream academic WP:RS. These are the rules of the game.
In other words, we're not allowed to remove the bias of "the elites".
We're humble in respect to mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We're not humble in respect to just everybody. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Got it. Plainly put, you’re subservient to the relative, contingent, biased opinions of hyper specialized academics over universal standards of epistemic integrity and accuracy.
Oh, but such standards don’t exist in academia; instead, we go by consensus opinion, no matter how deeply flawed and corrupted it may be. And yea, fair enough, this approach is optimal for natural and social sciences, but as soon as we get into more speculative fields, this approach quickly becomes another form of uncritical, implicit ideological authoritarianism.
What happens when the mainstream intellectual discourse/consensus becomes filled with biases and ideological corruption? To hell with critical thinking and universal standards of epistemic validity, we just bow to our overlords.
Yes, you blindly pander to epistemic authorities with no built-in safeguards or fundamental standards of accuracy and validity that might buffer against implicit biases and erroneous axioms perpetuated by collective epistemic circularity and paradigm-lock. You endlessly defer to what others say, and those “others” are embedded in a cultural discourse that can and does shape their methods, frameworks, analyses, and conclusions.
Every society or epoch establishes systems that determines what’s true or false, authorizes certain institutions, discourses, and people as truth-producers, and excludes or delegitimizes other forms of knowledge or meta-narratives. Therefore, you’re not grounding yourself in “scholarship” — you’re grounding yourself in the contingent regime of truth that defines the academic field. That regime, like all discursive formations, decides a-priori, or in advance, which statements can count as knowledge, and which are dismissed as error or speculation; what claims are considered valid or invalid. It’s not epistemic humility; it’s epistemic subordination to the power/knowledge structure that polices discourse under the guise of neutrality. It’s submission to the current regime of truth.
So you’re not devoted to truth, or “neutrality”, or “objectivity” as claimed, but rather, to the 21st century ideological clergy.
Welcome to the Dark Ages. Alexander Nigma (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RGW.
The normal response isn't to claim that he had metaphysical depth, through ipse dixit, but to WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS that he had metaphysical depth. The former is prohibited by WP:OR.
You have to adapt your manner of working to the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have to adapt to your POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
This is nice and all, but I'm afraid if you want to discuss your personal essays you probably need to go join a club or something. GMGtalk 23:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
This is not about personal opinion, but about fair and objective representation following rigorous epistemic standards rather than bias filled meta-narratives. By dogmatically representing academic narratives and blindly and unjustifiably upholding them as objective standards of truth, we risk implicitly reflecting their a-priori biases and erroneous paradigms. Wikipedia’s framework is deeply flawed because of this, and it leads to propagandist hit-pieces like this(Evola’s) page, instead of fair, truly neutral, and objective representations.
And acting like academia isn’t a “club” is peak naivety and irony sir. Alexander Nigma (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
So? This is what Wikipedia is: it kowtows to mainstream academic sources. You might try Conservapedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
About your invectives: what is true is harshly disputed, and some philosophers dispute that "truth" has any meaning. See WP:THETRUTH. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Apolitical?

Mainstream WP:RS don't buy it. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)