Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Original research tag

Many sub-sections in the Philosophy section lack citations and appear to contain original research based on the subject's works. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the tag. I will scan through the sections and add references where I can! --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see what's going on here. Sorry about the strong language. I agree the Philosophy section - indeed the whole article - is a bit of a disaster. Doing my best to at least make the text agree with the sources. Found multiple instances of sources that immediately contradicted the text in which the were cited. Dlawbailey (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

New Section On Evola's Racism

In this editor's view, other editor's are going through inappropriate machinations to avoid having the words "racist" and "racism" on the top of the page. I am not seeking to characterize Evola's views in any way other than that in which Evola himself characterized them. I have repeatedly agreed to include any Evola quotes other editors require, so there is NO danger of original research. Further removal of Evola's own language from this page is inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's standards. If editors disagree, please note previous disputes. On Wikipedia, historical figures - particularly authors - are responsible for their own words. Dlawbailey (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines emphasise secondary sources, of which there are plenty that connect Evola to racism: sample Google books preview. The material is much less likely to be challenged when cited to secondary sources.

Where Have All the Fascists Gone? has 38 mentions of "Evola". I did not check the other books from above, but his one is RS; see: Tamir_Bar-On#Where_Have_All_the_Fascists_Gone.3F; it's written by an academic. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines clearly allow and encourage the use of direct quotations from a subject when the subject is the clearest possible source. "Racism" is a loaded term and a loaded charge - except for Evola, who is an avowed, theoretical racist and (at least in his own mind) a foundational thinker of modern racism. There are a lot of people who are called "academics". Wikipedia prefers the most authoritative sources be used. There is no more authoritative source on Julius Evola's beliefs than Julius Evola.

What specifically are you trying to avoid seeing on this page and why? How does a section that only seeks to quote the subject on his own views make the article slanted or unclear?. Evola is already used as a source in this article. At some point, removing Evola's own words becomes a tendentious edit on your part. We are quickly reaching that point. Change the section in ANY way you want, but do not remove it again, please. Dlawbailey (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's a misunderstanding. If Evola was a racist, I would very much support adding content to this effect to the article. But using Evola's own words could amount to "original research" (please see WP:OR). In addition, using Wikipedia as a platform for Evola's view is not the purpose of the encyclopedia (that's why I tagged the article as "original research"). Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I moved and renamed the section on race and racism. We agree that there's a misunderstanding. The question is the content and purpose of your throwing away the subject's own words. Evola is already quoted as a source, as indeed is the norm in Bio articles. Nothing could be clearer or less biased than Evola himself stating his own views on race without self-contradiction. IF you find some self-contradiction or academic research that calls into question the clarity of Evola's own words, then please supply it. I would welcome it. Meanwhile, let the man speak for himself, as he was proud to do. Evola was not shy or unclear about his racism. To my knowledge, he never backed off of it or attempted to modify it. Racism was a fundamental, spiritual concept for Evola - again, per his own words. If YOU feel you can improve the clarity by citing a secondary source, then I challenge you to do so, as is your responsibility as an editor. Dlawbailey (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The article already has a very long (too long) subsection titled "Race" under the "Philosophy" section, so why is this also in the "Biography" section? Also, this needs a more specific reference than just a generic link to a page listing his writings. Asking people to read all his works to form their own opinion defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia, and providing two quotes to support this is just begging for accusations of cherry-picking. A reliable independent source would be much better, and that shouldn't be hard to find. The burden is on you, too, for this. Expecting others to cite your additions isn't going to work. Grayfell (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem here. Please bear with me and see the next section. I was shocked by how far out of context the article had taken Julius Evola and how badly skewed the POV was. I am trying to improve the article, with many challenges ahead. Again, please see next section coming soon. Dlawbailey (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Substantial Text And Even Sources May Need to Be Removed

I think footnote 8 needs to be removed. The article is unfindable and seems to be a review or conversation and not a true academic work. Other editors please advise. Never done this before. Dlawbailey (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I also think H.T. Hansen is a questionable source in that the text here comes from book forwards and essays rather than academic papers per se.Dlawbailey (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the "Tradition" section needs the entire last paragraph removed. It's just long, not relevant to the rest of the text or terribly revelatory. Happy to have it restored if others degree. Responding here to @Grayfell concerns. Dlawbailey (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Race" section was immensely long and I removed some of the discourse on mysticism and race. I just could not see the relevance of this level of detail. Also contained what seemed to me original research. Badly cited. As always, editors are welcome to put stuff back, but the excessive length of this section has already been noted and flagged problems abound in this part of the text. Dlawbailey (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've generally found the article to be problematic too (see section above "Original research tag"). These uncited passages based on an editor's interpretation of Evola's works should go. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, would the article still make sense if you just removed them? I'm all for it, but I don't want to remove too much myself as I seem to be alone in re-writing the thing. Don't want it to be just a Dlawbailey enterprise. Dlawbailey (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Neofascism

This information was deleted "inspirer and ideologist of neofascism" I want to note, that Stanley G. Payne and Nicholas Goodrick-Clark are very reliable sources Cathry (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Even the article states he is anti-fascist and that article is biased. I'm not sure what weird agenda you're trying to push here but you can't keep putting this false information here. 95pack (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The article, as it stood before, clearly stated that there were conflicting opinions on whether Evola was a fascist or not - the fact that he stood politically to the right of the fascists in Italy doesn't mean that any reference to him being a fascist should be eliminated. Rather, it should be made clear that although Evola himself did not align himself with the fascists in power in Italy at the time, his ideology was certainly not far from a fascist ideology - if anything, some of the sources cited describe him as being even more fascist than Mussolini. His own self-description is noted, as it should be, but it does not automatically override opinions of him written by reliable sources, and render those sources as inaccurate. All of that relevant info should stay on the page. Rockypedia (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Payne is respected for sure opinions on Goodrick-Clark are more split. A. James Gregor has argued forcibily against seeing Evola's work as neofascist as he argues (conviningly in my opinion) that the term is too loosely applied. Not every far right or authoritarian thinker or regime is neofascist or fascist. That is something Payne himself argues at length, grabbing on sentence out of a huge book to argue otherwise seems unwise. BS6 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

POV and accuracy problem

Some editors feel the need to repeatedly vandalize this page and label Evola as a "neofascist," even feeling the need to put this in the introduction. Every time I try to fix this error my edits are reverted. Aside from the fact that Evola was anti-fascist, "neofascism" did not even exist as an ideology when he did his work. I think this problem needs to be fixed and I'm not sure how since there are aparently people who feel very strongly about defacing this article. 95pack (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bandaieditor and 95pack: Calling something vandalism when it's not vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism), not using any edit summary, just saying "POV", etc. typically are not effective if you're removing well-sourced content. That said, I've attempted another version rather than this back and forth reverting business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to break down my edit: The first sentence of the article was "[Evola] was an Italian philosopher, painter, and esotericist, inspirer and ideologist of neofascism." It cited sources by Payne and Goodrick-Clark. In addition to the grammatically problematic double "and" and extra space, "inspirer" is awkward and saying he's an "ideologist of neofascism" sounds like we're saying he held neofascist ideologies rather than holding some beliefs compatible with fascism or that he was influential with neo/fascists. However, reverting it removes all mention of his influence, as well as those two sources, from the lead. Since the third paragraph of the lead was already dedicated to talking about his relationship with fascism, but didn't talk about his influence on neo/fascists, I moved that part along with the sources there and did a little copyediting (which I'll note the section on fascism also needs). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think, "influential on" is not proper characteristics because he had close relations with neofascists (and fascists) Cathry (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

To claim Evola was 'anti-fascist' is clearly special pleading. A. James Gregor does agree it is innaccurate to refer to him as neo-fascist though. See The Search for Neo Fascism which has an entire chapter on Evola. BS6 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-working Article From Top Down

I am starting with Paul Furlong's book because it is the most-recent and most-complete academic portrayal of Evola. I want to note that A. James Gregor is an important, but problematic source. Gregor's emphasis is on the relationship between Marxism and Fascism. To that end, he downplays the influence of non-Marxist lines of thought on the history of fascism, dismissing Evola's practical influence on Mussolini's fascism. Gregor's language is also very casual and contains much heterodox opinion, yet his scholarship on Fascism is undeniable. I believe the first purpose of this article, however, should be portraying Evola's own ideas and their inspirational relationship to political currents. To that end, I propose leaving Gregor for the "Relationship With Fascism" section. Please comment. Dlawbailey (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems your style of putting "racist" or "fascist" in so many sentences has come at the cost of some facts. "Spiritual racism" is accurate and fine, however Evola wasn't a fascist. They tried to prosecute him after the war in Italy, but couldn't because all he did was some contract work for Mussolini. Essentially, Evola felt that the fascists didn't understand his ideas so he stopped bothering with them. He did have some influence early on, but few people actually listened to him, unlike Giovanni Gentile. Though, I suppose it depends if you are using "fascism" to refer to the actual Italian political movement or just a synonym for far-right. There was a well-sourced chapter called "Politics" in an earlier version explaining well how he differed from mainstream fascism but you simply removed it. Also what's up with putting alt-right stuff in the influence section? Seems rather silly. --Pudeo (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to read the Furlong book but I think Gregor makes a convincing argument about the peripheral influence of Evola. It is in post-War Italy that his influence seemed to become more prominent, partially due to his occultism. His popularity with some of the European far right and white supremacists today seems important and odd to exclude. BS6 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Evola One of the Most Important Fascist Thinkers??

This claim in the firt paragraph keeps getting restored despite my sourced addition from strong sources that Evolva was a peripheral figure in Italian Fascism and soon fell of favour and was dismissed by Mussolini as a 'hysterical fanatic.' Richard Drake, “Julius Evola, Radical Fascism, and the Lateran Accords,” Catholic Historical Review, no. 74 (1988), p. 414; and D. A. Binchy, Church and State in Fascist Italy (London: Oxford University Press, 1941), p. 119.

This is more strongly supported and cited than nearly anything else in the article but it keeps being removed? The only rationale would be that the editor is pushing an agenda to exaggerate Evola's standing and importance which is in contradiction to neutrality. BS6 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:, please don't revert edits with the note "there is no consensus" when you aren't even participating here. You very well know this article was just recently rewritten by a single editor with no other consensus than to remove OR. Also, what's up with rev-deleting a revert to the old version? --Pudeo (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To be quite clear about it, I do not have the power to delete revisions from the article's history. Only administrators can do that, and I am not an administrator. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that, I just pointed it out in the same message. I've now made the following changes: reworded the lead, stating that he foremost was a philosopher. Starting the article with "was one of the most influential fascists" is a bit silly, as his influence to fascism stems from being a philosopher. The "spiritual racism" and influence stays in the lead, but I also re-added information that he wasn't a member in the Fascist Party. It has to stay. Also, I re-added a referenced chapter (looks fine to me) from the old version describing contradicting scholar views on his relationship and influence to fascism. Dlawbailey's version simply omitted all referenced views that didn't identify Evola closely within the Italian fascist movement. --Pudeo (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I did a small partial revertion bringing back referenced information from the older version (before Dwladbailey's complete rewrite, he didn't need a consensus did he?) and FreeKnowledgeCreater reverted me with the note ": Rv - please discuss such controversial changes before making them. " eventhough I have discussed this in three different talk page sections. Also why are you stating I should follow BRD when you aren't even contributing anything to the talk page? --Pudeo (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Pudeo, to "discuss" things means to discuss them with other people. You simply announcing your views is not a discussion. Your changes are obviously controversial, and you should not repeat them without agreement with other editors, which it appears you do not have. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I raised my objections to the complete rewrite by a single editor on 1 December and no one replied. Other critiques were presented by Zeander and BS6. No one replied. How can we have BRD when no one is replying? Also how do you claim there is a consensus for the complete rewrite when it hasn't been supported here, other than to remove OR? That is the most arrogant behauvior I've ever seen during the 10 years I have been a member here. --Pudeo (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, please explain how my partial revertion to referenced information which was in the article for years and removed without discussion is "obviously controversial"? --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman. Maybe you want to participate in some discussion here. How are University of California, Berkeley's Professor of Political Science A. James Gregor views on Evola's relationship with fascism not notable enough to be presented on the article? He does not think Evola can be straight called a fascist. Why should we present Aaron Gillette's view as the single truth, removing other views by scholars? --Pudeo (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I re-added the cited para with this edit. I disagreed with the removal of cited information from the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. James A. Gregor likes to point out differences and disgruntlements Evola had with Italian fascism. In his 2006 book The Search for Neofascism he criticizes vague use of the term neofascism. Then some authors like Gillette, who write about neofascism, disagree with him. I think both views should be in the article. But an accurate way to describe Evola's relationship with fascism would also be to pick up a good biography and detail all the agreements, disagreements and work he did with them. --Pudeo (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

most recent edits

I corrected recent edits which contained errors. Steve Bannon was claimed to have been influenced by Evola, but this claim is unsupported

"Bannon: I think it’s a little bit more complicated. When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.

One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism — and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States. They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level. “You’re seeing a global reaction to centralized government, whether that government is in Beijing or that government is in Washington, DC, or that government is in Brussels. So we are the platform for the voice of that.”

I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.

You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character. He’s also very, very, very intelligent. I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of. Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand. However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put it on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first.": https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world

If people actually have an article linking Bannon's views themselves to Evola, rather than merely quoting his discussion of Evola's influence on Eurasianism, then please post it in the response to this.

There is also the problem of primary sources, they can be used (though judiciously), so I have kept the second sentence. In general though, given that Evola wrote contradictory things on racism (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julius_Evola#Evola.27s_racism), we don't want to rely on primary sources, lest the article become filled with contradictory statements, and original research interpretations.

Also some extra commentary has been provided to descriptions of magical idealism that does not trace back to the source cited. Evola's spiritual racism was developed after his theory of magical idealism, and that theory is well reflected in the article.Gggtt (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

when Bannon's own mouthpiece, Breitbart, describes the Alt-Right as influenced by Evola and Bannon himself sites Evola AT THE VATICAN, what more do you want, exactly? Look, Gggtt, you are clearly looking at Evola as an esotericist or whatever. We are in an age of the far right rising in the Western world, therefore Evola's position of influence with the racist far right is the most journalistically and historically important part of his legacy. Whatever you think of Evola, you just have to deal with that fact. Dlawbailey (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I can agree to keeping the article as it stands now.Gggtt (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

redirects

Many links to books written by evola redirect back to this article, but this article has absolutely no info on said books besides the title. Sometimes, the links provided on this very article redirect back to this article. From a usability stand point, it is pretty stupid when a link on the article "Julius Evola" actually loops back to "Julius Evola". Because of this, every link on this article which just loops back to this exact same article, is pointless and should be removed until a separate page is provided.78.34.169.15 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The circular links are because of the redirects. They should be removed from this article, not the article restored, unless sources are added that establish stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

self-cited

I edited the article to reduce self-cited content; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is fine - I disagree, however, with your massive reduction of the book list - some of the other books are notable, and outside of wikipedia people would likely not have reference to them in the English speaking world.Gggtt (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Then please remove the red links and the links that are self-redirects to this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please give me a few more hours to establish notability of some of the texts that are currently redirects and re-establish their pages with sources.Gggtt (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggest not adding further content cited to counter-currents.com: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It will likely take me another day to provide sources fir the other books. If you are concerned about that, please come back this weekend.Gggtt (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In the above diff, I was objecting to WP:OR based on primary sources, namely counter-currents.com. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I inserted those references in order to satisfy the concerns of Dlawbailey so that I might be able to focus on other aspects of the article.Gggtt (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

K E Coffman, I think Counter-Currents is ok if one is simply quoting an article as that's where a lot of the translated articles are found. Surely you're not objecting to the use of Evola's own writings in an article about Evola. If Evola writes about his own experiences, Furlong and the other sources are using Evola as their sources on that fact. If, on the other hand, Evola were to characterize someone is a "self-hating Jew", for example, then it really depends on the point being made. "Evola felt that X and Y were self-hating Jews" is a perfectly rational thing to say. "X and Y, self-hating Jews, said Z and Q", citing Evola as a source, is clearly not. I think the problem we're having here in general is that Gggtt is treating Evola's philosophy as if it is true, rather than presenting it journalistically. However, I don't like the blanket dismissal of a source for some technical Wiki reasons. Dlawbailey (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at this article per my interest strong interest in esotericism, and I'm in the processof restoring articles of his books on that topic with sources. I will take a neutral view on this subject, and attempted to alleviate your concerns by citing the most blatant examples of Evola's racism that were translated on counter-currents, which, considering its relevance as a source in the racist milieu, would likely emphasize his racist writings in a way that more sanitized sources would not. I did this in order to remove any issue that Dlawbailey had over possible whitewashing.Gggtt (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

As established by the following discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julius_Evola#Evola.27s_alleged_influence_on_Yiannopoulos_and_Spencer, we can cite sources like Radix and Counter-Currents when there is "supporting context provided by reliable, independent sources." Accordingly, I have inserted those 3 sources into the article.Gggtt (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean the discussion right below this one? As I've already said on this talk page, if a reliable, independent source is not emphasizing a quote, neither should Wikipedia. Evola was prolific to the point of logorrhea, and using his own works, especially anonymous translations of his works hosted on white supremacist websites, is not an appropriate reflection of reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we mainly reflect secondary sources. It's up to the secondary sources to hunt through his works and figure out what's important and what's not. These primary sources should seldom be used at all if it can be avoided. They can be used for non-controversial details about the source. An example would Counter-currents as a source for what Counter-currents says about itself. Another would be Evola explaining his birth date or educational history. Primary sources can also be supplements for info more widely discussed, in depth, elsewhere. One example would be a direct response to a well-publicized criticism. Directly choosing general quotes from him in order to paint a picture of his beliefs is understandable, but it's a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur, extensive quoting from primary sources is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Since the sources in question are fringe, WP:FRINGE applies: editors should use fringe sources when noted by RS, otherwise no. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

K E Coffman, I know this is the technical, wiki-rule, but let's not let Wiki-idealism turn this article into a pedantic exercise when there are important, current issues here: namely the influence of a foundational racist on far-right movements that, like Evola after fascism was outlawed in Italy, try to whitewash their fascist, racist tendencies with words like "traditionalist". This article has LEAPED UP in importance because of the front page NY Times article on Bannon and Evola. For example, in reviewing the secondary sources, we find that Evola's own personal account is the source EVERYONE turns to on the meeting with Mussolini. Yet at the same time we have A James Gregor, an academic of equal status, who nevertheless fails again and again to acknowledge the fact that Evola was hand-in-glove with the fascist movement. And, of course, inspired by secondary sources on "esotericism" (really? can we talk about the incredible notion that a belief in MAGIC should be given equal weight with involvement in the most destructive political movement EVER???) we have Gggtt who will quote secondary "sources" at us all day and night that talk about how Evola is "really" just some innocent esotericist who happened to get caught up (for decades) with the fascist movement, all of whose ideology he just happened to support. At some point, the fact that Julius Evola writes personally and proudly about his meeting with Il Duce is decisive here, no? Let's keep an eye on the journalistic forest instead of focusing on the primariness of a few of the trees. If, as Grayfell points out, Evola is prolific to the point of loggorhea, then how huge the body of literature that focuses on one or another part of his legacy? In my view, the primary focus of this article should be the historical importance of Julius Evola and, again, Gggtt's exposition on Evola's philosophy belongs in a separate article in my view. Dlawbailey (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Path of Cinnabar

Veteran user Grayfell has written, " These primary sources should seldom be used at all if it can be avoided. They can be used for non-controversial details about the source. An example would [...] be Evola explaining his birth date or educational history. Primary sources can also be supplements for info more widely discussed, in depth, elsewhere."

The Path of Cinnabar is his autobiography. In it, he states of his book on Buddhism that "The English edition of the book was approved by the Pāli Society, a renowned academic institute for the study of early Buddhism, which acknowledged the validity of this work."[1]

I am going to restore the article on that book with secondary sources, and I am wondering if I could also cite his autobiography for that piece of information.Gggtt (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Short answer is 'no'. These are claims by the author and should not be included unless covered by 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

But let's be clear, if Gggtt (Mr. De Turris? sorry, speculation) wants to use the Path of Cinnabar as a source for sentences like "Evola's view about Buddhism was....." then I think that's more than permissible insofar as the secondary sources all cite that source. K E Coffman, you have to realize the wide and mutually contradictory range of secondary opinion on Evola. Primary sources are not forbidden at Wikipedia by any means. I gave an important example: Press says one thing about a bank, bank's regulatory filings say another. The point of avoiding "original research" is more than a pedantic, robotic elimination of sources. Again, Evola is the source on his meeting with Mussolini. When you have reputable secondary sources like Gregor who goes so far as to say that Evola was anti-fascist and you have Evola himself writing years later in glowing terms about his meeting with Il Duce, as cited by Furlong and many other scholars, then at some point the primary source is the best medicine, no? The wikipedia reader should not be asked to sort out competing claims by academics if we can cite the historical source which BOTH academics acknowledge and let the reader decide. particularly if it's such a clear and important example. Read Gregor and you are told to ignore the totality of Evola's involvement with the fascist movement. Read Evola the self-described "superfascist" and you get the clear picture that the only reason Evola's only critique of fascism was that it wasn't elitist enough. Dlawbailey (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have cited the "superfascist" item right after the Gregor citation. Future edits will include as many citations of Wolff as possible in order to drown out Gregor and allay your concerns.Gggtt (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Evola is not a neutral source on Evola, and there's a good reason WP:NBOOK calls for substantial independent sources. Rushing to create stubs for all of Evola's works is counterproductive and creates a distorted impression of Evola's significance.

If Gregor's opinion is WP:FRINGE, it should be reflected as such. That's what WP:DUE is all about. Interpreting primary sources is not what Wikipedia is built for, and it's not what we're good at. If Gregor is indeed reputable, then his work can be explained as a minority academic position. If he's the only one advancing this position, it can likely be ignored all together. Primary sources shouldn't be used to break the tie, especially when there is no tie to be broken. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Of one of Gregor's works, we have the following review - "A. James Gregor is indisputably the foremost authority on totalitarian philosophy and practice in the English-speaking world (at least). This magisterial book will add to that reputation: there are few scholars, if any, who could produce a work of such panoramic sweep. Further, Gregor makes the most imaginative linkages between ideas and phenomena that previously might have seemed unrelated. His provocative insights will attract much attention." -Anthony James Joes, Saint Joseph's University: http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Political-Religion-and-Totalitarian-Ideology.phpGggtt (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I inserted a source on Evola's interpretation of Tantra within an anti-Feminist context from a source that clarifies the matter, which is reliable given the authors' notability to the extent that their writing was included in Stern Magazine [2].Gggtt (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Review? that's a dust-jacket blurb selected by Gregor to top an article he wrote himself which says nothing about Evola. Blurbs are very poor indicators of significance, but that wasn't even my point. If Gregor's position is fringe, it should be reflected as such. The article on A. James Gregor is poorly written, based almost entirely on primary sources, and was edited by Gregor himself, which is a bit of a red flag. Even setting aside his status a reputable academic, context always (always always always) matters. It's possible for academics, even ones who have won significant awards, to promote fringe perspective.

Having written for a reliable source doesn't make everything a person does automatically reliable! That's just absurd. If the person is a recognized expert, their opinion could be included with clear attribution per WP:SPS. None of this "critics noted" WP:WEASEL nonsense. If trimondi.de has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, that should be demonstrated. Assuming it's reliable because it overlaps in writers is a dead-end. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia, in a translated article, discusses the notability of the author attacking Evola's Tantrism. From it, we find that "Victor Trimondi (born 1940) is the pen name of Herbert Röttgen , a writer, essayist and former German publisher who co-wrote his works with his wife Mariana under the pseudonym Victoria Trimondi. He strongly criticized the Dalai Lama in his book The Shadow of the Dalai Lama 1 and contributed to the Dorje Shugden controversy .": https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Trimondi&prev=search

The Dorje Shugden controversy is notable, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversyGggtt (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A James Gregor

A huge part of the problem here is A James Gregor. Gregor has certainly knows his fascists, but he represents a tiny contingency of academics who seek to blame Fascism on Marxism, ignoring the immense influence of "Traditionalism" on Fascism. Evola, of course, is his special target because Evola was so very influential in Fascist thought but rejected Marxism in the strongest possible terms, insofar as Evola was a pathological elitist. From Gregor and this ilk comes the idea - now pounced on by today's Far Right - that any Nazi or Fascist philosopher can be rehabilitated if we all just misunderstand history to suit their hyper-political, right wing point of view. There's no question that Marxism was an important influence on 30's fascism, just as there is NO QUESTION that 30's fascists, like today's Far Right justify their existence to a great extent on fighting "Bolshevism" "Socialism" "Globalism" "Multi-Culturalism" and everything else the associate with a Marxist tendency. Sadly, there is no middle ground in this debate because the right wing will never stop whitewashing racist fascist thinkers like Evola to whom they are attracted. This is a thorny editorial problem. Add to that the whitewashers (many of whom are far right, but by no means all) who look at Evola as primarily an esotericist (fancy word for believers in magic, the journalistic seriousness of which I question) and I think we have an excellent argument for splitting the article up to reflect interest in Evola the racist fascist, Evola the "traditionalist and Evola the esotericist. Dlawbailey (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Dlawbailey, no whitewash is occuring. The extreme right views of Evola are well represented, as well as his esotericism. Moreover, his esotericism underpinned his extreme right views - it provided an ideological foundation.Gggtt (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

By referencing Evola's admission of "superfascism" right after the Gregor reference, I believe that I have addressed your concerns in a way that allows us to keep the Gregor reference as it stands, which is cited after the references to him as a "fascist intellectual", etc. However, future edits will include as many citations of Wolff as possible in order to drown out Gregor and allay your concerns.Gggtt (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tantra

I wrote above, "The French Wikipedia, in a translated article, discusses the notability of the author attacking Evola's Tantrism. From it, we find that "Victor Trimondi (born 1940) is the pen name of Herbert Röttgen , a writer, essayist and former German publisher who co-wrote his works with his wife Mariana under the pseudonym Victoria Trimondi. He strongly criticized the Dalai Lama in his book The Shadow of the Dalai Lama 1 and contributed to the Dorje Shugden controversy .": https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Trimondi&prev=search The Dorje Shugden controversy is notable, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy" Accordingly, I think this source can be used for this particular issue. This diff reflects my use of the source, which I think is extremely illuminating on Evola's views on sexuality.Gggtt (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Links on talk pages are formatted the same as in articles:Dorje Shugden controversy.

This are several different issues packed into a single edit here.

Different Wikipedia projects have different notability guidelines. The French Wikipedia is not directly equivalent to the English Wikipedia, and notability must be established for the English one separately (I assume the French Wikipedia doesn't not inherit notability from the English Wikipedia, but that's up to them). Having a French article means nothing.

Actually, having an English article means nothing, also. Being a published writer (published by who?) on the Dorje Shugden controversy does not mean that their comments on Evola are also significant and therefore must be accepted for inclusion. Is there a specific connection between the Dorje Shugden controversy and Evola that I'm not aware of? If so, it's not at all obvious from that edit.

The quote doesn't belong at all without clear attribution explaining who is saying it. Simply mentioning their names and work is only barely adequate for WP:COPYVIO, but we have to be better than just that bare minimum. We need to provide readers with some context for who is providing this opinion, and that context should point to why it's worth mentioning beyond a single editor's opinion that it's illuminating.

WP:MACHINETRANSLATION should only be relied on for editor's convenience, as it's very poor for anything subtle or controversial, or sometimes even poor for basic facts.

Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The German translation provides info on Trimondi as a notable source. The article refers to Trimondi as a religious researcher: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Trimondi&prev=search

He is notable on both the French and German Wikipedias, thereby increasing the case for citing him. The sources in the reception seem to all be in German, thus explaining the lack of an English article.Gggtt (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited from other Wikipedia projects, regardless of language, and as I said, that's not really the main problem here. Setting that aside for now, what about all the other problems I raised? The book Shadow of The Dalai Lama, doesn't show up in Worldcat, doesn't list a publisher, and doesn't appear to be a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. This must be treated as a WP:SPS similar to a blog. If we qualify this by describing them as "religious researcher(s)", we have not given the reader any meaningful context for who they are and why their opinion is helpful. "Researcher" is an empty title that anybody can claim at any time.

The quote itself doesn't seem very clear to me, either, and has major neutrality issues. The use of ellipses and quotes within quotes... It's too messy. It uses the word "unmistakable", but what, exactly is unmistakable? It reflects a very specific, very strong opinion of Tantrism. By itself it seems like it's saying a lot more about Tantrism than it's saying about Evola. Placing an obscure quote to indicate something about Evola not actually specified by any source is a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As regards notability of The Shadow of the Dalai Lama, it is cited in the apparently notable Chinese Human Rights site http://www.humanrights.cn/zt/magazine/200402004827112156.htm

Also, it is referred to as authoritative in "Stripping the Gurus" by Geoffrey Falk, which links to the site hosting the book that I previously cited. Falk states, "For more of the inside story on Tibetan Buddhism, consult Trimondi and Trimondi’s (2003) The Shadow of the Dalai Lama: Sexuality, Magic and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism."[3]

Falk's book is recommended by the notable author Sam Harris [4], and has been positively reviewed in an article from the International Cultic Studies Association [5].

The excerpt from The Shadow of the Dalai Lama that I'd like to include provides explicit clarity on Evola's views of sexuality:

"Evola was not just a theoretician, he also practiced sexual magic rites himself. There are unmistakable statements from him about the “tantric female sacrifice” and the transformation of sexuality into political power. Like almost no other, the Italian has openly named the events that unfold in the mysteries of the yogis and then confessed to them: “The young woman,” he writes, “who is first ‘demonized’ and then raped, ... is essentially... the basic motif for the higher forms of tantric and Vajrayanic sexual magic” (Evola, 1983, p. 389). In dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini he saw the precursors of future Maha Siddhas who would one day conquer the world with their magic powers: “The magician, the ruler, the lord”, he proclaims in regard to Tantrism, “that is the type of the culture of the future!” (Evola, 1926, p. 304). He recommends Tantrism as “the way for a Western elite” (Evola, East and West, p. 29)."[6]Gggtt (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point completely. Being cited by an "apparently notable" is meaningless. How are they notable for this quote? How does that make them experts? What does being an apparently notable human rights site have to do with Evola? Who is Geoffrey Falk? Piling obscure garbage on top of garbage is just making this worse, not better. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Reviews of Falk [7] (and authors Falk cites quote Evola as an example of what they criticize in the text as a whole: Armed with wit, insight, and truly astonishing research, Geoffrey Falk utterly demolishes the notion of the enlightened guru who can lead devotees to nirvana. This entertaining and yet deadly serious book should be read by everyone pursuing or thinking of pursuing the path of guru devotion. —John Horgan, author of Rational Mysticism

Stripping the Gurus is superb—one of the best books of its kind I have ever read. The research is meticulous, the writing engaging, and the overall thesis: devastatingly true. A stellar book. —Dr. David C. Lane, California State University

This gripping and disturbing book should be read by anyone who finds themself revering a spiritual teacher. —Susan Blackmore, author of The Meme Machine

Geoffrey Falk's delightful but disturbing unmasking of religious prophets and preachers who command a vast following is a welcome contribution to the literature on the gurus and god-men of all religions. —Dr. Narasingha P. Sil, Western Oregon University

No one involved in contemporary spirituality can afford to ignore this book. It exposes the darker side of modern spiritual movements, those embarrassing—sometime vicious or criminal—reports which the leaders of these movements prefer to hide. With wit and humility, and without abandoning the verities of religion, Falk has provided a corrective critique of groups that peddle enlightenment and transcendence. A must! —Len Oakes, author of Prophetic CharismaGggtt (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Evola's alleged influence on Yiannopoulos and Spencer

Even ignoring the total butchery of this article (I don't see what was wrong with the previous version, which seemed more objective and less politicized), I see no evidence of Yiannopoulos ever even reading Evola, let alone being significantly influenced by him. Yiannopoulos is really a rather moderate conservative who's views are hardly compatible with the reactionary Evola. As for Spencer, I recall him saying that he hasn't read much Evola and has never really counted him among his influences whenever he talks about them. Listing those two as people influenced by Evola seems to me like a political move attempting to tie Evola to a largely online movement that he no doubt would be rather critical of. Thinkers like Nietzsche and Spengler are just as popular in the alt-right as Evola, so why not go ahead and butcher their articles as well? Evola's spiritual racism obviously deserves attention, but that was only one aspect of his rather complex philosophy. I don't see why it needs to feature so prominently here. 129.252.33.51 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• For Richard Spencer, see a featured article by E. Christian Kopff on Spencer's website, also I will remove Milo and add Kopff. Additionally, Kopff is also a notable academic, even though he is on the far-right, so I will cite his article unless other editors raise objections.Gggtt (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Radix Journal is not a reliable source, and should not be cited without supporting context provided by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering Kopff's academic notability, I will cite his article secondary to other sources that are reliable to establish the notability of some books I am going to restore the articles of. If this is not acceptable, then please state what you mean by "supporting context".Gggtt (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Be cautious of WP:SYNTH. If reliable sources do not specifically say that Kopff was influenced by Evola, Wikipedia should not either. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP's point is a nonsensical objection in the face of Yiannopoulous's own writing in Breitbart that Evola is an important influence on the Alt-Right. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ . I am restoring the reference to Yiannopoulos. Dlawbailey (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source. If a reliable, independent source highlights this connection, so be it. Otherwise it's not worth mentioning. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart is considered WP:BIASED, but it is still considered a reliable source, although I'm not sure about Radix. Nuke (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion of Radix is presently on the RSN [8]. Radix I think is the leading alt-right site, so a decision on this site will by implication affect other alt-right material as well. Hence the discussion is of relevance not just for the Evola article. I am busy, and already made the proposition for the Kopff article, but proposed that authors' articles from that site could be used if the authors themselves are notable. A decision on this could set a precedent, hence I encourage other editors to join in.Gggtt (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hermeticism

Ebeling's authority on Hermeticism is indicated that his book on the subject is published by Cornell University Press: [9]

See also the following concerning his specialty: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zaw/aegy/institut/ebeling.html

"Dr. Florian Ebeling Research Focus Research Projects Index of Fonts

Research assistant in projects DFG Project "Egyptian Freemasonry" Propylaeum: Theme Portal on the History of Egypt Reception Dr. Florian Ebeling mail@febeling.de Tel .: (+49) 06221-5252533

Research focus

Method and terminology of the exploration of the Egyptian reception Egyptian Mysteries in Religious History and Literature Freemasonry in the 18th and beginning of the 19th century History of Hermeticism Platonic philosophy (oriental Platonism) as a philosophical background of the history of the Egyptian reception Research projects

Zauberflöte (in collaboration with Jan Assmann, DFG) Egyptian Freemasonry between Enlightenment and Romanticism (DFG) Theme portal on the history of the Egyptian reception (as part of "Propylaeum, Virtual Library of Ancient Studies") Fonts directory

Monographs: The secret of Hermes Trismegistos. History of Hermeticism, Munich, 2005 (The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistos, Cornell University Press, 2007) Egyptian Mysteries. Traveling through the underworld in Enlightenment and Romanticism (with Jan Assmann), Munich 2011 Essays: Catarino Mazzolà's libretto "Osiride" (Dresden, 1781). A contribution to the cultural-historical context of the Librettos of the "Magic Flute" , in: Mozart-Jahrbuch 1999, 2000, pp. 49-69 "Secret" and "Secrecy" in the Hermetica of the Early Modern Period, in: Ancient Wisdom and Cultural Practice. Hermeticism in the Early Modern Period. Publications of the Max Planck Institute for History 171. Göttingen 2001, pp. 63-80 Rational Mysteries? An interpretation option for the magic flute , in: Meyer, Sibylle (eds.): Egypt - Temple of the Whole World. Studies in Honor of Jan Assmann, Boston / Leiden, 2003, pp. 59-80. Mozart's The Magic Flute, the Terror of Death and the Power of Music , in: Bärbel Pelker (eds.), Theater um Mozart, Heidelberg 2006, p. 127-142 "Egyptian Freemasonry" in the second half of the 18th century , in: Zeitschrift fur internationale Freimaurerforschung 22, (2009), pp. 9-28 On hermeticism in the freemasonry of the 18th century , in: Quatuor Coronati. Yearbook for Freimaurerforschung No. 48, Bayreuth 2011, pp. 55-71 Hermeticism and Platonism as a ritual practice - the Freemasons of the Late Enlightenment and their claim to the heritage of the Renaissance, in: Bibliotheca Chaldaica. 3: Platonism and Esotericism in the Byzantine Middle Ages and the Italian Renaissance. Hg. By Helmut Seng. Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 281-302 Egypt as the home of alchemy, in: Petra Feuerstein-Herz and Stefan Laube (eds.): Golden Knowledge. The Alchemy - Substances, Syntheses, Symbols, Wiesbaden 2014, pp. 23-34. Alchemical Hermeticism, in: The Occult World. Edited by Christopher Partridge. Routledge 2015, p. 74-91"

Carl Jung also considered Evola's texts on Hermeticism to be of importance.Gggtt (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What is this copy/paste even supposed to prove? If it's the same as link, just link. Everyone here is fully capable of following a link, or of performing a simple web search.

"Of importance" how? Jung made a passing mention of them once, and cited them another time. You linked to the source yourself. This isn't substantial. Not every Google hit belongs in the article.

What's the point of these talk page posts if you just keep ignoring what we said in the previous ones? Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Jung cited Evola's text as a "detailed work on alchemy" and sued it to substantiate his hypothesis on alchemy. More importantly, the other statement is substantiated by a book devoted to Hermeticism published by Cornell University Press. Aide from this, numerous other sources discuss his esotericism - they are represented in the article as it currently stands.Gggtt (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Another source on Evola's Hermeticism: [10].Gggtt (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Book articles / redirects

I would suggest to the interested editor to add the content on the books to this article first, rather than restoring numerous redirects. For now it looks like the sourced material for each may be one or two sentences, if the sources are indeed deemed reliable and suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we have a complete article, which is thorough, warts and all. All that remains is to add texts cited in the article to the "Notable Works" section, and restore other articles using information cited in the body of the text.Gggtt (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WTF. This entire page was completely gutted.

It had so much valuable information about Evola as an esoteric, masculine, aristocrat, who was anti-fascist, and anti-racism. Especially Neo-Nazi biological racism. This is a disgrace to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerVitamin (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Anti-racist? You have a real uphill battle to prove that. And disagreeing with fascists on some points hardly qualifies as anti-fascist. BS6 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the page is awful now. You used to come here and get a general idea of what he thought overall. Now you just get an idea of what a few people people who don't want you to read him think about a few of his views. 208.124.113.143 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because Bannon was inspired by Evola's work, some despicable individual has gutted this page. Now all you see is associations to fascism, instead of his thinking or who he really was as a person. What the hell is wrong with Wikipedia and the people editing this? This page was fine until someone of prominence decided he likes Evola and now you dare to tarnish this thinker's name. Sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecuagringo (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ecuagringo:, the current article emphasizes the depth of Evola's activities in extreme right circles in a way that previous versions did not. But it also satisfies your criteria by exploring the multi-dimensional nature of Evola and his other activities. If you are concerned about this, then you might want to preserve efforts such as what is currently represented in the article, lest future editors seek to do away with mentioning "his thinking or who he really was a person".Gggtt (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ebola was hardly an ideological person, yet your edits paint him as a Fascist right winger. Whatever buddy, we all know you are on someone's payroll. Control the narrative as much you like, you're still going to lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecuagringo (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a picture of Evola that one might obtain initially via his proponents, and there is a different picture of Evola obtained by reading the relevant sources. Actually, I don't think Evola would have really minded the characterizations of him in this article. If you are concerned that Evola is being unfairly represented, consider his article "The Hegemony of the White Races" - stuff like this is reflected in the relevant source literature - this comes from a leading alt-right article repository:

"The spirit of adventure, the love of risk and the unknown, the sheer pleasure of domination and predation, the desire for great distances were, more than any rational, mercantile, and utilitarian motive, at the origins of white expansion, and were inseparably bound to specific character traits: to a hard will, to coldness, to tenacity, to contempt for life and for death, to an unshakable feeling of superiority. [...] Only a return to origins, i.e., to the original attitude that brought whites to world domination — after the elimination of all the detritus of a soulless civilization devoid of ideals, a civilization that worships the idol of mere economy and is founded on the principle of leveling democracy — will allow us to maintain our supremacy. And that means reviving the oceanic symbol, reawakening the will to the infinite and limitless, fueled – so to speak – by the ocean wind, the freedom of enormous distances. This spirit, however, must be mastered by firm discipline and translated into strength hardened like steel. [...] It is no accident that Italy, which only now is fully entering into a cycle of conquest and colonial empire-building, has also proved its capacity for such a spirit, while in other countries, those forces have for a long time and over the span of many generations been lying dormant, decimated or supplanted by other, lower forces. Thus, in this respect, too, Fascist Italy is now a symbol, and has defined the terms of a European alternative. Those nations that will be incapable of following her in accomplishing the miracle of a renewal and a revival in the sense just indicated, are destined to be swept away by the tide that is gradually swelling among the races they once dominated. Whatever the power of those nations may still appear to be today, it is merely the legacy of a spirit that is now dead. Only the other nations, who will answer the call of fascist “youthfulness” and bring back the deep forces of their race to new epic heights, and to a new spirituality permeated with the drive towards limitless, will be part of the new front called upon to defend and reaffirm Western world supremacy."[11].Gggtt (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Gggtt's Unique Viewpoint May Demand New Article

[Clarification - when initially beginning this article I had an inadequate conception of who Evola was. Now that I finished it, I think that the concerns of the person below are satisfied beyond what he thought possible.]Gggtt (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I respect any editor's prerogative to include a journalistically/academically valid material in an article, but this is a biographical article, not an article on Julius Evola's philosophy. If, for example Aleksander Dugin SAYS that Julius Evola inspires him and this is confirmed journalistically, then it's a journalistic fact. If Julius Evola supported Italian fascism and fascist thought, then we was a fascist. Evola was recognized both by himself and the Italian fascist community as a fascist supporter. He also wen out of his way to proclaim is support for fascism in journals of the time. If he later broke from the movement, so what? It doesn't change the journalistic fact of his involvement in fascism. If Il Duce says that Evola influenced his regime's official racist manifesto, then that is a journalistic fact.

Gggtt may have a more nuanced view of Evola's philosophy, but that is not the concern here. The Kali Yuga is NOT a journalistic fact. I therefore propose that if Gggtt wants to restore his over-lengthy edits explaining the details of Evola's philosophy that these edits be moved to a new article on Julius Evola's philosophy. Dlawbailey (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed to current article, so no need for further discussion along these lines. Aside from that though, although videos cannot be cited in wikipedia, the following video provides a broader perspective on this [12]Gggtt (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I want to be clear, I respect your views on Evola, but their place in THIS article is problematic for four reasons: 1) They are heterodox. This is not a problem in and of itself, but any Wikipedia article is inevitably a statement of journalistic and academic consensus rather than an argument about truth, excepting those situations where publically-available and clear findings of fact are available. For example, I argued for a heterodox position concerning an American bank. The consensus had ignored the bank's own financial statements, so my citing of those figures won the day. But this was not a matter of opinion, but numbers and statutes. 2) Historicity. Julius Evola is an authority on his own actions and experiences. He is only one authority among many on the nature of fascism and the state of mankind. Therefore, quoting Evola's mystical theories does not speak authoritatively to his place in history. 3) Integrity Whatever Evola said later, he is responsible journalistically and historically for his previous statements and relationships during the rise of fascism. That he thought his own conception of fascism superior to others does not make him anti-fascist, or alienate him from the movement in which he thoroughly steeped himself. 4) A James Gregor's bias. Gregor is certainly a scholar of fascism, but his interpretation is heterodox and tendentious. Gregor wants to blame fascism on Marxism alone and to deny that Traditionalism is hand-in-glove with fascism. Yet he makes no HISTORICALLY persuasive argument that traditionalists who were part and parcel of the fascist movement should be separated from it. To the contrary, he notes again and again the commonality among Traditionalists, Fascists and Neo-Facists.

Finally, there can be no question about Evola's PRESENT influence. He is arguably the favorite philosopher of the racist far-right. Again, you have every right to try and separate Evola from this current, and you can make those arguments at length in a separate article about Evola's philosophy, which I encourage you to write. What the Wikipedia cannot accept, I think, is re-interpretation that results in whitewashing a super-influential racist and anti-semite. Dlawbailey (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

E. Christian Kopff also distinguishes Evola from Fascism, so I am removing the reference to "only one scholar". Also, the source cited does not support the claim that eco derived his title for his text "ur-fascism" from the ur-group. the definition of "ur" is "primal" or "original": http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ur

Still, in order to ensure consensus, I gave superior support for your viewpoint.Gggtt (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction on Eco. I hadn't realized that the names were coincidental, at least as far as we know. But once again, I have to take issue with your lengthy recapitulations of Evola's philosophy. Who Evola was is ours to judge, not his. The idea that Evola "opposed" fascism in any real way is clearly absurd. Evola supported a racist, anti-semitic, authoritarian system based on bogus mythology AND OF COURSE he was deeply involved with fascist journals, trusted and praised by fascists. Again, Gregor's interpretation of Evola is tendentious, based on Gregor's thesis that Marxism, rather than Traditionalism, was what morphed into fascism. This may or may not be true, but it hardly exonerates a racist supporter of fascism just because he thinks their racism isn't racist enough. Would you say that Bernie Sanders "opposes" the Democratic party because he's not a member and because he offers a critique of its policies? Of course not. Evola was a fascist. End of story. Gregor's hyper-narrow definition of fascism simply does not hold up. Moreover, if you continue to try and overwhelm the article with Evola's esotericism, I will be adding a long list of associations between Evola's writing and modern racists and neo-fascists. Is that what you want? Do we really need quotes from StormFront here? That's what we'll have if you keep trying to push this idea that Evola was an innocent esotericist rather than someone who used magic and mythology to justify the unjustifiable. The ammunition on my side of the argument is nearly endless. I'm happy with a Furlong-centered exposition on Evola but Evola's association with fascism is clearly his fault, not the fault of some misunderstanding. Once again, critique is not opposition. That Evola criticized the fascist movement in which he was steeped does not make him an opponent of fascism by any logical standard. Finally, you're free to write a separate page on Evola's philosopy and I will formally suggest this to our fellow editors if the article continues to be dominated by your point of view to the detriment of the histprical and journalistic record. Dlawbailey (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you will find it satisfying that the depth of Evola's extreme right activity, as well as his other important aspects, is represented in the article to a much greater extent than was represented in your edits.Gggtt (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)