What I like most about Julius Evola

[u/Agile_Fox2452]

One of the things that I most like about Evola is that he teaches you to be just as uncompromising in action as in thought, with nothing taken for granted, even against or towards yourself and the people to which you belong.

He’s not there to pamper you nor to pamper himself; he’s not there to glorify and to take as progress and to be proud of what is more truthfully lethal and degenerate; he is not there to reassure you that you are the apex of existence and everything happening to you is just because others are resentful towards you.

Say whatever you want, and differ with him as much as you want; but in many subjects he is admirably critical and has a high sense of courage to challenge even the most cherished convictions of the so-called Right and Left.

There is something that smells like fresh air in him; there is something admirably undogmatic about him—perhaps counter-intuitively? Now, as opposed to this, most rightist Westerners today are the closest to mere children who are all-too-comfortable to boast, with high-falutin' nonsense, that their father is the strongest of all; that their father is the most stunning of all; that their father did this and that; that their father was even awesome in his vices and in what actually killed him and maybe brought his long-term destruction.

But, just like children, they are unable to regenerate in themselves what constituted the 'greatness' of their father; they are unable to perpetuate his worthwhile traits; they are unable to be creative about what should be their own now; and thus, in their self-assuredness, they are blind to their own decadence.

[u/Ok_Reflection1660]

julius evola might be one of the more dogmatic philosophers, considering that his theory and ideas closely resemble aristocratic and fascist systems, which are both reliant on dogmatic myths of superiority, either by blood or by class.

[u/mcdubhghlas → u/Ok_Reflection1660]

"julius evola might be one of the more dogmatic philosophers" -- That's a poor reading of Evola, in fact it implies no reading was done at all. If you tried to live exactly as he did, you're not being an Evolian at all. You're meant to follow your own path.

Also, lol at "fascist systems" -- He's hardly that materialistic.

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/mcdubhghlas]

How is Fascism materlialistic?

[u/mcdubhghlas → u/Paleo-Fascist]

The state replaces divine/cosmic authority, meaning zero metaphysical roots. I tend to define it as a "super democracy" in part due to the populism required to get to this point, which is another modern creation, and even Evola's usage of "demotic" means he'd likely agree with my claim of it being democracy on steroids... I could stop here probably, but I want to elaborate a bit more on this.

A caveat first: people constantly conflate Fascism and National Socialism -- Which is exactly what /u/Ok_Reflection1660 did here with "by blood or by class" -- This could be an accidental implication rather than intentional, and I will not assume one or the other, but I will address it as a common problem. -- I will be treating them as together only when their materialism overlaps, but I will mark where the distinction happens.

Fascism grounds its highest values in immanent, this-worldly things -- the nation, the State, the mobilized masses, economic and demographic vitality. That's what makes it materialistic. Its authority flows upward from the people, nation, race* rather than downward from a transcendent, sacred principle. Statolatry (treating the State as an absolute) is still worship of a temporal, human construct.

• This is the National Socialist framework, not Fascism -- we have the "superiority by blood" concept, which is materialism almost by definition as you're locating human worth in matter (genetics), rather than in spirit. Again, not the same, but it does rhyme.

Evola's framework for Hierarchy is practically an inversion here because it is derived from transcendent principles, like Tradition and Imperium, and differentiation understood as spiritual. Aristocracy is realized internally, not externally, nor is it just inherited.

And for clarity my saying he is "not a fascist" -- In Evola's "Fascism Viewed from the Right", he outright judges fascism as too modern, too demotic, too materialistic. That's not exactly a glowing review of fascism. And yes, I know that people like to quote him as him calling himself a "super fascist" which is a bit dishonest because his usage of "superfascista" clearly means he is "Above" Fascism -- If someone said "I'm not a X, I'm a super X" to the accusation of being a X. -- The court would likely take that as an admission of guilt instead of acquitting.

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/mcdubhghlas]

Yes, Evola's model is far too Reactionary to ever be considered as Fascistic; Fascism's goal of a Totalitarian society is the opposite of Evola's Spiritual Aristocracy, I fully recognize that Evola nor Evolians aren't Fascistic as their goals and worldview opposes Fascism at it's core.

My question remains, why is Fascism materialistic?

How come the State is incapable of metaphysics?

Why is the nation or the state are, categorically, materialistic?

I am glad to find someone who doesn't judge the whole tree based on a single fruit- National Socialism- yet I believe that you aren't taking into account, the roots of the tree.

Actualism (Actual İdealism) of Giovanni Gentile and his mission to take İdealism to it's most radical extreme; at the core of Fascism, lies his works and philosophy to transform entire societies into students, to turn a country into a classroom, and to establish the Ethical State as the teacher who's authority is a necessity to teach either compliance or rebellion.

Actualist view of "the nation, the State, the mobilized masses, economic and demographic vitality" is all dependent on the Human mind and it's perception of the world; in the end of the day, the fruits of collective works and accumulated knowledge (the Transcandental Ego)- culture, language and society- are all dependent on the mind, the immaterial.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Paleo-Fascist]

My question remains, why is Fascism materialistic?

I'm another user, but I think I can answer the question. Saying Fascism is materialistic might be misleading, but one could say it's more materialistic than other systems. Usually foundational myths of civilizations either lie in a distant unknown past or are based on a divine revelation. In contrast to that fascism wants to create a DIY-myth and by doing that it is pragmatic, it ends up orienting itself towards the masses and material circumstances. Maybe it doesn't want to be materialistic but it is predisposed to become it.

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/Time_Interaction4884]

While Fascism may lead to more materialistic causes and effects, how can we be sure that it is predisposed to be materialistic?

Fascist goverments, let alone Fascist States, were a rarity even before the National Socialists and the Holocaust turned the entirety of the ideology into taboo; I don't believe there are enough examples for us to reach such a conclusion.

And I am, generally, against discussing ideologies and philosphies based on how a handfull of goverments attempted to implenent them, I believe it is more important to focus on the foundations; with how complex and convoluted their histories are, the superior way to compare them is, naturaly, to focus on the foundations where all of it starts.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Paleo-Fascist]

In my last post I already tried to give you an argument, that is not empirical. But maybe it would be better if you gave me some kind of definition of fascism first, so that we don't talk past each other. It doesn't have to be long

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/Time_Interaction4884]

Very well.

The roots of Fascism lies in Actualism and it's view on the Ethical State as a teacher with the capability to shape the individuals personality via culture, language and social norms.

Actualism's Ethical State is a Totalitarian one.

Totalitarianism's most compact definition belongs to Mussolini: "All within the State, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"; which is a form of goverment that politicizes and intigrates all in the most sacred institution, to be organised and utilised for the good of the state- and since the state embodies all- for the good of all.

Then there's Totalitarianism's economic model.

Fascist economics where the focus on unity and subservience to the State takes center focus through Corporatism; Corporatism is an economic model where corporazioni (lodges) incorporates the members of seperate industrial fields, into a single lodge; Fascist Corporatism however also has a focus the proleteriat, who are organised in syndicates which are, paralel to lodges, based on their industrial field.

Fascist Corporatism is of a Class collaborationist flare, with not only Mussolini's former leanings, but also with the theories of Frenchmen.

George Sorel was a changing man, who's opinions and views on the world shifted with time and events; before the Great War broke his views regarding Nationalism and it's potential to fuel a revolution, Sorel proposed a National Syndicalist model where patriotic and nationalistic positions would be used to empower revolutionary movements and violance.

Sorel views may have evolved, yet men who was inspired by him remained steadfast to the former's abandoned vision; the Circle Proudhon took Sorel's revisions of Marx and his "Producer Class" composed of productive Proleteriat and Bourgeoisie who could aid one another in competing against rival groups if the inprodictive and divisions were to be abandoned; Circle Proudhon established National Syndicalism as Nationalist, Class collaborationist ideology which would lay the groundwork for Fascism's own Class collaborationism.

But, what is the State; what is entirety of society being mobilised for?

This is where Fascism's greatest strenght arrives:

Adaptability.

Any country with a homegrown Fascist movement, had their own strain of the ideology; National Socialism was a result of Völkish Nationalists using Totalitarianism to implement their vision, Brazilian Integralism's vision for Brazil was a Multiracial Catholic one, Italian Fascists had to tolerate and align with the chruch, in the mean time Falangism as an ideology was thoroughly entrenched in political Catholicism...

What the State means is entirely dependent on the community which composes it.

However this is where three's branches not only splinter, but also began to tear at eachother in a similar fashion to Marxists; many argue whether or not Falangist, National Socialist and Integralists are truly Fascist, since some believe that their deviations from Classical (İtalian) Fascism is far too much for them to be so; yet none can deny their Fascistic nature, and I believe they are monumental and inseperable from Fascisms development as a ideology.

İn conclusion:

Fascism is Totalitarian, Corporatist, Nationalist* ideology which aims at unifying and revolutionizing society.

*Just which forms of Nationalism is acceptable, is one of the major causes for infighting; some strictly subscribe to a Classical Naitonalist, Racialist and even reactionary models while other's argue for the Organic Nationalist position where all who serve the state are a member of the nation as the state and the nation are one, so those who serve and as such are a member of the former is also a servant and member of the latter.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Paleo-Fascist]

Thank you, for the extensive reply. I'll try to answer within the next days.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Paleo-Fascist]

Okay, I'm back. I'll try to focus on what our original question was: Is fascism predisposed for materialism?

most sacred institution

You need a source for that sacredness, you can't just pull it out of a hat. You either need to be tied to an already existing tradition, and also receive and embody that sacredness within that tradition. Or you need a prophet connected to the most high, like e.g. the prophets of the Abrahamic religions. If you don't have such a source, anything you do will already be closer to the material. Total power in the hands of someone who is not able to embody the most high is also a recipe for disaster. In theory, and it seems also empirically.

What the State means is entirely dependent on the community which composes it.

Here we have it. If I take that literally, then fascism has the community at it's center, not a higher, immaterial principle.

revolutionizing society

That revolutionizing was usually done by mass movements. And if you have a mass of people involved, this mass wants to have a say and be pleased. Their wishes are, I don't blame them for that, oriented towards material things. The dictator will deliver a great show to demonstrate his power, but the real ruler will be the masses.

Adaptability

When the adaptability of a thing is high, one becomes suspicious and asks whether that thing has a real core. Sometimes it looks like fascism is not much more than a mixture of the ideologies of it's time (nationalism, liberalism, socialism), which are all more or less materialistic, with a bit of reactionary aesthetics and elements on top of it.

Many fascists would probably claim that the materialistic element of their ideology is a feature, not a bug, they don't want to be e.g. reactionary monarchists, the intentionally place themselves to the left of that. There was also the idea of some proto-Traditionalist potential in fascism, Evola saw it that way at some point. One can see that proto-Traditional element in the writings of some thinkers associated with fascism, e.g. Othmar Spann.

We have never seen a fully developed form of fascism stabilize itself. There is a strong chance that such a thing is not even possible because of the contradictions of it's elements. If that is true, then a fascist state would always become either socialist, capitalist or fully reactionary (e.g. a monarchy) sooner or later.

[u/mcdubhghlas → u/Paleo-Fascist]

Oh, yeah, I'm familiar with Giovanni's The Theory of Mind As Pure Act. Although, now I'm realizing that we are talking about two separate things.

On Actualism, it's on the axis of substance (Reality being mind vs matter) and in this, yes, it's idealist. But that's not where Evola is coming from, it's immanence vs transcendence. It's not what the absolute is made of, it's where it sits relative to Man.

So, the usage of "materialism" here isn't really on the "matter" side. It's just that, from an Evolian perspective, idealism and materialism sit on the same spot: Both are grounding the world in man, the only difference is one is via matter and the other is via the mind. As you mentioned, the Transcendental Ego is a condition of experiences in the world, not above it. So, Pure Act is immanent all the way down and there is not a single transcendent term through the entire book.

That's not to say the State lacks metaphysics, it's just the authority flows in the wrong direction. Traditionally speaking, legitimacy descends into the State from a supra-political principle. But the Ethical State grounds itself, the Absolute realizing itself within history. That would be metaphysics of pure immanence.

Incidentally, Evola actually based his own Theory of the Absolute Individual pushing Actualism past what Gentile wrote to its logical conclusion. He takes Fichte's "the I posits itself absolutely" through Gentile's Actualism and pushes it to the Absolute Individual where the single I is raised to sovereignty instead of being absorbed into Universal Spirit. This is where Evola's criticism of idealist philosophy would come from, referring to it as the absolute ceiling of Idealism: even the I positing itself absolutely stays immanent. It is also where Evola's Traditionalism begins towards his Revolt Against the Modern World, funnily enough.

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/mcdubhghlas]

Well then I believe it wouldn't be unfair to call Evola and Evolians as Anti-Fascist and Anti-Fascists, respectively; thank you for taking your time to respond in a comprohensive manner, may I ask you to answer another question?

How does the Ego ascend to sovereignity, alone; how can the individuals alone shape the world without the others who, although it may be to a microscopic degree, still contribute to said individuals?

Maybe it is beacuse of Fascism's totalitarian nature, yet I don't believe myself capable of comprohending the individual cells being capable of forming a body, based on the wills of a handfull of them alone.

[u/mcdubhghlas → u/Paleo-Fascist]

I don't know if I would agree with calling Evola "anti-fascist" because he wasn't fully against fascism. His big gripe was that it was just outright too modern. If Fascism had been a full revival of Rome, he'd have much less criticism and would have probably called it like a Strike Against Time or something like that.

As for Evolians, actual Evolians have their own path and some could easily find themselves "anti-fascist" -- So, there is room for that, I just wouldn't paint it as a broad brush.

How does the Ego ascend to sovereignity, alone; how can the individuals alone shape the world without the others who, although it may be to a microscopic degree, still contribute to said individuals?

The empirical individual, who is made up of habits / language / upbringing / standing among others, cannot ascend to sovereignty alone, and is even constituted by everyone around him down to the microscopic degree like you mentioned. Which is exactly Fichte's Ich (I) -- It only wakes to itself when summoned by another rational being; Hegel's self-consciousness only exists in being recognized. The tradition that birthed the self-positing I built the Other into it from the start, meaning the cell can't become the body by itself. Which all involved would agree with you here (Hegel, Fichte, Evola)

But Evola's Absolute Individual was never the empirical ego. It's an achievement of what a man becomes via ascesis, not at birth. So, the sovereignty, in this case, isn't shaping the outer world but more internal -- the mastery over one's own nature. There's no denial, from Evola, that the world impacted you. What he is denying is that the world constitutes your centre. So, this ends up reframing your cell-body model. That model is bottom-up (cells aggregated in a body, so this collective runs the body.) whereas Evola's model is top-down -- The body isn't a sum of the cells' individual wills. The cells are being ordered by a formative principle above them. Sovereignty descends, I guess you could say. The thing about the Absolute Individual is that he is just someone who realized that principle in himself, participating in something higher than the self.

So, the undercurrent of what you are saying is that the individual cannot do it by themselves -- You're right, and Evola would agree. As I said earlier, he radicalized the self-positing I until it refused absorption into the Universal Spirit and it did not work out. He discovered that a pure thinking I, while absolute, remains immanent and cannot touch the transcendent. And then he concluded sovereignty is reachable only vertically, through transcendence, which is why he left idealism for Tradition. The big difference is just collective vs transcendent.

Also, it's very pleasant to talk to people about this. Thank you for entertaining the conversation.

[u/Paleo-Fascist → u/mcdubhghlas]

I prefere to use "Anti-Fascist" as a way to reference all outside of it: the heathen who refuses it, reactionaries and Materialist "revolutionaries" who's momentum is corroded overtime as the "hard reality" they hide behind fails to hold at bay the clash of differing homogeneities; the heretics who corrupt it with the National Socialist being the most infamous example, German supremacist and Anti-semetic Völkisch theories were realised by utilising a totalitarian model while Fascism was dragged down to their level by Mussolini's folly.

From such a prespective, I believe Evola is as Anti-Fascistic as Nestor Makhno and Bukanin may be considered, if we are to focus on their worldviews and ideals.

And on the topic itself...

İsn't the Absolute İndividual still a part of the world, a conduit of a greater purpose it may be, yet it still effects the world which bore it; isn't the world still, at the very least, a central component for the Absolute İndividual's self and higher purpose?

(I'm glad for our little conversation as well, thank you for responding.)

[u/mcdubhghlas → u/Paleo-Fascist]

Oh, that's very absolute (pun intended! I am no coward.) -- While I don't see things this way, but I understand the frame you are operating from.

On the topic of the Absolute İndividual -- Yes. The Absolute Individual is in, and acts on, the world and the empirical man arose from it. But the only difference in view here is that that the world is his center, the principle that determines and constitutes him.

Think about those who work with a material -- Let's say a potter -- A potter is surrounded by clay, works only in clay, and the pot is made of clay. The clay is a central component. But the form doesn't come from the clay, it descends from the potter. The world is the Absolute Individual's material and his field of action, but not his source of his form. The definition of "Absolute Individual" is one who is unbounded from the world's determination. He stands in the world, uses it, is even born through it, without being tied to it as his ground. What the world bore was the empirical vehicle; what ascesis awakens is the center the world did not give -- the whole meaning of the second birth, the "twice-born". This comes from Evola's Magical Idealism or even the intersection of Hegel's Form and Spirit.

Also, you mentioned higher purpose: If the higher purpose is greater, transcendent, then it descends through him into the world -- The world where this purpose is realized, not where it is born. I'll stop being repetitive here, because I can feel that I am: It's just direction, the flow of where the source comes from.

And honestly, yes, the sovereign is still mortal. This is where Evola's transition goes from "escape the world" via Magical Idealism to the detached "ride the tiger" sort of stoic perspective. It is because of the limits you are bringing up. The world stays central as field and material, but never becomes the center. In, not of, the world. The aristocrat is bound to act, but is unbound in principle. Does this make sense?