Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Lead

Maybe stating in the lead things such as "President Donald Trump's chief adviser Steve Bannon, in a speech at the Vatican, noted Evola's influence on the Traditionalist movement and Eurasianism favored by Dugin and the alt-right." does not comply with this policy and it's sort of chronocentrism. Who knows, the source is buzzfeed.com after all.Strakhov (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not just Buzzfeed. See also New York Times. Why do you think this page has gotten so many hits recently?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh. It's Buzzfeed and The New York Times. A newspaper publishes something on someone (in the middle of a war in the media between trumpists and antitrumpists) and... blop. To the lead. But it just happens we are not writing about an actor, an active politician or a pop singer, but a philosopher, writer, ideologist, esoterist and many other (creepy) things ...dead long time ago. There are many monographies and scholarly articles on this guy try here, but it happens here that aaaaaaall the lead is centered on saying absolutely nothing about what he thought or he wrote, but ideological tagging (fascist, fascist, alt right, dugin, trump, putin, antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, antipopular). The lead... is gross. What about:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

Did we forget that? Anyway the link between Evola and Duguin seems to fit better in Bannon's article than in the lead of this one. Good luck! Strakhov (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I felt the link between Evola and fascism was weak until evaluating relevant sources [1]. Academic references are to his extreme right politics and to his esotericism, accordingly this is represented in the lede. Evola was the real deal when it came to the extreme right.Gggtt (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but if you thought the link between Evola and fascism was weak you probably knew nothing about Evola. But it does not mean it's the only thing we should say about Evola. Strakhov (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC) PS. Try to read Adolf Hitler's lede (Godwin's law at its fullest). He was probably the real deal when it came to the extreme right [sic]. Yeah, they are... different. One belongs to a good article and this one... well. I guess we do not need adjectives. Strakhov (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I had a sanitized understanding of the 1951 trial and also thought he was an aristocratic critic from the right (see this to understand why one might think that [2]), who worked with it but rejected it. I knew about his contributions to Mussolini's views on race, but thought he was a fringe character in Fascism, outside of it. The Ordine Nuovo and Sicherheitsdienst items refute this viewpoint. That's what I'm talking about with my statement.Gggtt (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"The absolute butchering this article has gone through in the past months on my watchlist is sickening. I don't mean to scandalize anybody, but looking at the profiles of some active users restructuring this page, they seem at least a bit biased against this philospher and trying to manipulate the tone of this article to seem defamatory and demonized to the average reader, who of course have been coming in droves due to recent events. I haven't even dared touch this article in months because these particularly adamant and ideological users will revert absolutely everything that doesn't fit their gaslighting. It's like watching a fish dropped into a pool of hungry sharks. It's a bloody tragedy.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The article actually cites sources noting the seriousness of Evola's work in esotericism (note: preserving this aspect will alleviate readers' concerns about alleged lack of neutrality in characterizing Evola "harshly"), and also fairly reflects his politics. Evola had extreme right politics. Other editors felt this was being whitewashed. I attempted to allay their concerns by representing this via reliable sources. The article a month ago had an excess of original research by editors expressing horror at the influence of Evola and attempting to "remove whitewashing", to the point of removing descriptions of many of his notable works. In order to alleviate these editors' concerns, and allow other aspects of Evola to be represented, I deliberately expressed the extreme right aspects of Evola to the fullest extent permitted by reliable sources.Gggtt (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't cite this source, a repository for many Evola articles, but for some of his extreme right views, see his articles "The Hegemony of the White Races": http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/06/the-hegemony-of-the-white-races/, "Racism & Anti-Semitism": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/racism-and-anti-semitism/, "Negrified America": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/negrified-america/, "Orientations": http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/01/orientations/, and these convenient excerpts from Metaphysics of War [3], in many ways a mystical version of this: [4]

The following excerpt from The Shadow of the Dalai Lama, the only non-established source recently being discussed for inclusion (which has nevertheless been referred to in notable sources), also 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)."[5]Gggtt (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance @Gggtt:. I just, looking over this article as it is, it seems revamped in a suspicious way. I need to examine it more closely. This is a tough case because, of course considering the environments most of us probably grew up in for decades, it is quite arduous to keep a total NPOV for someone with such esoteric philosophy many in the West would consider "out there" and/or offensive. I can't say I have an easy solution. I would say to call another third-party to review, but even then, that person most likely has their own shock and initial bias at Evola's works. Perhaps I should trust more in the users, but the polemics in the edit history show that at least a couple of users have their own agendas to push (not you).--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus:, I have attempted to make this article a fair representation of Evola, citing a plethora of scholarly sources concerning not only his esotericism, but also the extent of his extreme right activity (actually underrepresented in previous articles). Accordingly, I think that such a fair, warts and all account of Evola should be upheld, and I hope you will assist me in doing this.Gggtt (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I appreciate your efforts. I'll take a look over soon and do what I can, if I can!--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 04:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well. At least Donald Trump has dissapeared from the lead! That's a great start! Strakhov (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I (attempted to) revert restoration of material to the lead: diff. Evola is mostly notable for his relationship with fascism. What is "misleading to the readers" in the prior version? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your concerns as well as the concerns of Ilovetopaint have been addressed in my improvements to the article.Gggtt (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

recent edit

I recently made this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=756579898&oldid=756579478

The previous article included poor sourcing (including a link to an amazon.com!), selective use of primary sources (e.g. "There are hundreds of examples of racist language and concepts in Evola, For example, in "The Doctrine of Awakening" Evola writes" - sourcesone might find differing primary sources (I might as well cite "The Path of Cinnabar" - his statement (p. 170) where Evola states that "In my study of race, I argued that in accordance with the legitimate inner hierarchy of man, the inner case ought to be regarded as superior to the external and merely biological form" [6] (see also and particularly p. xiii of that text, the publisher's note which cites secondary and scholarly sources distancing Evola from biological racism), or even the fact that Evola's text on Buddhism was endorsed by the Pali society [7]),

so I cited the secondary source Furlong, and a statement " Arthur de Gobineau, most remembered for developing the theory of the Aryan master race and helping to legitimize racism, is constantly cited by Evola as fundamental to his thinking on race.", that contradicts the source literature - e.g. pp. 64-65 of Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke [8]

My initial comment in the lede was appropriate in light of the Fascism sub-section, though I will have to provide much more substantia. I merged the race and fascism sections into one section because as presented the argument was redundant and suffered from the defects outlined above. Evola is known for his esotericism and relationship with fascism. If you want me to put the Furlong item after the ur-group subsection, I would be more than willing to oblige.

I feel that my lede summed up Evola's perspective (and the word "extreme right" finds its reflection in sources - e.g. [9]), his esotericism for which he is known (e.g. [10][11]), and I did not minimize his contribution to fascism (though texts where Evola distances himself from fascism include "Fascism Viewed from the Right", see also the anthology of writings of Evola entitled "A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism", and A. James Gregor further highlights the distinction [12]).

The present article reads like a "non-sober" (if we are to be euphemistic) writing from somebody emotionally anguished by Evola, who attempts to tendentiously stack proofs rather than objectively describe the subject. People who have more than a fleeting knowledge of the subject will wonder at Wikipedia's neutrality in similar articles, and will dismiss such items. The edit I provided is more sober, and will make such dismissals less likely. I will need to re-write this article to accurately reflect the diversity of sources, not only on Evola's political thought, but on his religious thought.Gggtt (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

current revision is consistent with established article, but merely removes egregious errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=756661803&oldid=756661341

I will attempt to build consensus towards a rewrite at a later time.Gggtt (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many weak points you point out or how many reliable sources you find, FreeKnowledgeCreator will revert you without participating on the talk page or using any sources himself. I'm sorry. --Pudeo (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

::You could try taking FreeKnowledgeCreator to the Administrator's Noticeboard if you are bothered by his behavior. I likely won't be back here until February.Gggtt (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Evola was found not to be a fascist in court, and one only need highlight this book to see how inaccurate such a description of him is: https://books.google.com/books?id=LRCiCgAAQBAJ (see also p. xv regarding harassment of him by fascists, and p. xxii concerning some of the details of the court case where he was pronounced "innocent" of the charge that he was a fascist)Gggtt (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What happened after Nov 2016?

Pardon me, I have little to no knowledge of Evola beyond the gist of what was written in the lead since about 2009. I can see references to WP:OR in rationales provided by @Dlawbailey:. That might be true — I do see odd citations and obvious OR in the body of the old article. However, it's very suspicious how 90% of the second and third paragraphs, despite being highly informative and partially sourced, were junked. More weirdness:

• the claim that "Evola declared himself anti-fascist" was replaced by numerous factoids — with wonky syntax — connecting him to fascism and Nazis.
• if we look at the full context behind the source for "self-described 'superfascist'", the author states: "It is unclear whether this meant that Evola was placing himself above or beyond Fascism."

Looks like WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've restored some of the introductory material that was removed. Here is the full text for posterity:

Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (Italian pronunciation: [ˈɛːvola]; 19 May 1898 – 11 June 1974), better known as Julius Evola (/ˈdʒuljəs ɛˈvoʊlə/), was an Italian philosopher, painter, and esotericist. Evola regarded his perspectives and spiritual values as aristocratic, masculine, traditionalist, heroic and defiantly reactionary.

Evola believed that mankind is living in the Kali Yuga, a Dark Age of unleashed materialistic appetites, spiritual oblivion and dissolution. To counter this and call in a primordial rebirth, Evola presented his world of Tradition. The core trilogy of Evola's works are generally regarded as Revolt Against the Modern World, Men Among the Ruins, and Ride the Tiger. According to one scholar, "Evola’s thought can be considered one of the most radically and consistently antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, and antipopular systems in the twentieth century." Much of Evola's theories and writings is centered on Evola's own idiosyncratic spiritualism and mysticism—the inner life. The philosophy covered themes such as Hermeticism, the metaphysics of war and of sex, Tantra, Buddhism, Taoism, mountaineering, the Holy Grail, the essence and history of civilisations, decadence, and various philosophic and religious Traditions dealing with both the Classics and the Orient.

Evola's work was influential on fascists and neofascists, though he was never a member of the Italian National Fascist Party or the Italian Social Republic and declared himself an anti-fascist. He regarded his position as that of a sympathetic right-wing intellectual, saw potential in the movement and wished to reform its errors, to a position in line with his own views. One of his successes was in regard to the racial laws; his advocacy of a spiritual consideration of race won out in the debate in Italy, rather than a solely biological reductionism concept popular in Germany. Since World War II many Radical Traditionalist, New Right, Conservative Revolutionary, fascist, and Third Positionist groups have taken inspiration from him, as well as several apolitical occultists, such as Thomas Karlsson and Massimo Scaligero.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns - Evola worked for Nazi SD, and Italian Social republic claim in previous edit refuted by Goodrich-Clarke, "Black Sun", p. 66 - "[Evola] was involved in the short-lived Republic of Salò", but in accordance with your request for neutrality, I cited Gregor Gillette and Wolff in the lead, as follows - "In a trial in 1951, Evola, who denied being a Fascist, referred to himself as a ‘superfascist’ - and concerning this statement, historian Elisabetta Cassina Wolff wrote that "It is unclear whether this meant that Evola was placing himself above or beyond Fascism."[6] A. James Gregor argued that Evola was an anti-fascist.[7], while Aaron Gillette described Evola as "one of the most influential fascist racists in Italian history."[8]"

I think this statement more than satisfies your requirements when we consider what follows - "Evola was admired by Benito Mussolini,[9] idolized the Nazi SS,[8] and admired Heinrich Himmler, whom he knew personally.[8] Evola spent World War II working for the Nazi SD.[4]"Gggtt (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint, if you want an integrated perspective on who Evola was, see the following item concerning his justification of "transgression": [13]Gggtt (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:UPFRONT: "Put the least obscure parts of the article up front."

I'm not sure what I'm reading for in your link, nor do I really understand what it says. For anyone who accuses him of being a fascist, it seems very significant to note that he did not consider himself so. To put it another way, I think if Hitler claimed he wasn't fascist, that it would have been scrutinized in practically every piece of literature ever written about him. Surely this has been done for Evola? We should be using those sources that cover every base, not relying on writers from niche Jewish newspapers (The Forward) and NY Times writer op-eds from last month (this guy). (WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:BIASED)

The claims which say Evola "idolized", "worked for", or "admired" people or groups associated with Nazis do not necessarily equate to "he agreed with fascist / National Socialist ideologies", which I believe is the only reason those details are even mentioned. At least, that's how it appears, especially when the claims are sourced to entire books and not specific pages. Is this really more important than knowing other biographical details like where he was raised or what he actually did while he was alive? If he "worked for the Nazis", what did they hire him for? Painting and philosophizing?

Anyways, this lead leaves me with far more questions than answers. His fascism is obviously a contested issue, and the best way to cover the topic from a NPOV would be something along the lines of:

While Evola has explicitly denied being a fascist, whether he inadvertently or implicitly advocated for fascist ideologies remains disputed among scholars and commentators. Many of Evola's theories and writings were centered on his idiosyncratic mysticism, occultism, and esoteric religious studies [...]

Of course, keeping in with WP:SYNTH, multiple sources have to be found that state exactly this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There is also this claim, from the old lead, that is at odds with the current revision:

He regarded his position as that of a sympathetic right-wing intellectual, saw potential in the movement and wished to reform its errors, to a position in line with his own views. One of his successes was in regard to the racial laws; his advocacy of a spiritual consideration of race won out in the debate in Italy, rather than a solely biological reductionism concept popular in Germany.

This seems hugely notable. Does it not have basis in any previously published text?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

@Ilovetopaint:, The old info has been superseded by scholarly sources. Horowitz is not used to define Evola as a fascist. The specific references to his politics in the lede are "interwar konservative Revolution with which Evola had a deep personal involvement." (Ferraresi) "In a trial in 1951, Evola, who denied being a Fascist, referred to himself as a ‘superfascist’. Concerning this statement, historian Elisabetta Cassina Wolff wrote that "It is unclear whether this meant that Evola was placing himself above or beyond Fascism."[3] A. James Gregor argued that Evola was an anti-fascist,[4] while historian Aaron Gillette described Evola as "one of the most influential fascist racists in Italian history." (no reference to Horowitz for this definition) "Evola was the "chief ideologue" of Italy's terrorist radical right after World War II." (Payne)

The reason page numbers are not cited in some sources is because sources are used multiple times. The "race" issue is dealt with at length in the body of the text. For the Gillette reference on Himmler, though the pagination is poor, see [14]

"superfascist" and his denial of being a fascist is given at the beginning of the article. you appear to wish to include from the poorly sourced old article info claiming that he was an anti-fascist, perhaps out of sympathy. This has been included insofar as it is well sourced, and contrasted to opposing scholarly opinion. He was the mentor of neo-fascists, btw. Also, "Pagan Imperialism" was a fascist text that encouraged fascists to go further, that was cited by Mussolini to threaten the clergy, as noted by Gregor.Gggtt (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Gregor quote in lead

The quote from Gregor calling him "anti-facist" is inappropriate in the lead. Attributing this to Gregor in the body may be acceptable, but his position is so jarringly odd in contrast to the rest of the lead, much less the rest of the article, it absolutely demands more context. If we have countless sources linking him to fascism, and plain and simple evidence from his own activities in support of fascism (no matter how squirrely he got about the term itself) than calling him "anti-facist" is just too bizarre and too disconnected to be left hanging unexplained like that. We should not present this idea as though it were on equal footing with the overwhelming majority of other sources. Those sources plainly accept his de facto fascism, and so should Wikipedia. The idea that as a 'superfascist' he "opposed literally every feature of Fascism" transcends logic and enters the realm of fantasy. It's a minority perspective which only makes sense, being generous, if we allow for boutique definitions of fascism and spirituality which are far outside of the mainstream. This position should only be explained within context, and should not be repeatedly emphasized based only on Gregor's own writing like this. Gregor's position on this is being given undue weight, and needs to be trimmed substantially. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Old Article was better

The Works by Julius Evola section is missing Ride the Tiger, Man Amongs Runins, etc. It seems this article was vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.39.13 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a better list of his works, for the Works by Julious Evola purple box in the very bottom. I don't know how to edit that......

That's not going to happen. Too many of these are redlinks, and most of the rest are redirects to this article. It's unlikely that all of his books would meet WP:NBOOK, so there's little chance for expansion. Many of the ones with articles already lack clear claims to notability. There's no point in having a navbox which doesn't actually lead anywhere, or which only leads to boutique stubs. The place to discuss this would be Template talk:Julius Evola, but it looks like you already figured that out. Templates are fussy about formatting, and should be previewed before saving to avoid mangled nonsense like this. Please discuss and be more careful in the future. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Butchering of this page

− − As someone who has read what many consider the core trilogy of Evola's work (Ride the Tiger, Men Amongst the Ruins, and Revolt Against the Modern World) I am deeply saddened by what I can only call a butchery of what was once a decent summarization of Julius Evola. The very first sentence of the article is now inaccurate stating that he was a fascist when in fact he never belonged to the fascist party and some of his first writings were criticisms of fascism (albeit from a right wing perspective) during a time when fascism was at the height of it's popularity. Julius Evola considered himself a traditionalist (and anti-fascist), advocated for a traditionalist philosophy, and I strongly believe that calling him a traditionalist is an infinity more accurate term and should be the first descriptor of Evola in a biographical context. While it might be appropriate to highlight that some fascists and neo-fascists took some inspiration from him it should be noted he himself never advocated for that philosophy. It's also ridiculous to consider him one of the most influential fascists when he was never a fascist himself.

− − I would also like to make an objection to the fact that one of the biggest highlights of his initial description is the charge of racism against him. While there are a good deal of racist undercurrents in Evola's writings (Which I of course do not condone) The primary purpose and function of Evola's writings were a critique of modernity and the detailing of his esoteric beliefs derived from Indo-European tradition. Any accurate description would include a description of his political and esoteric values like anti-Liberalism, anti-capitalism, anti-marxist, his belief in the transcendent, his critiques of modernity, his strong hierarchal views, his belief in hermeticism, his sexology, his practice of magic, his study of Hinduism and other oriental religions/mysticism, and his hypothesis that humanity was in the "Kali Yuga" dark age before mentioning his racial theories, as the latter more derived from the former than reverse and the former were the main subjects of his books. While it would be negligent to not mention his (in my opinion abhorrent) racist views it is even more so to put them in front of many of the ideals he held highest in value.

− − Julius Evola is obviously a highly controversial figure and while I believe it is necessary to tread carefully around such characters it seems to me obvious that the article in it's current rendition is full of political bias. The majority of the article seems devoted towards his racial views and his "relationship" with fascism. There is a strong effort to make the charges of racism and fascism first and forefront and in my mind that can only be attributed to leftist, progressive (dare I say Marxist?) backlash or an attempt to completely invalidate a man they disagree with, with labels (1/2 of which don't even apply). I do not believe holding one or two "incorrect" opinions should completely invalidate a persons beliefs, especially one who writes intelligently and philosophically.

− − I made an account for the first time to make these comments about this page so I thought I would contribute here rather than attempt an ambitious edit of the article myself with no experience in the matter and hope those who do undertake an edit will take my advice into consideration and formulate the article in an unbiased manner. Please forgive me for any breaches of etiquette or guidelines (due to my newness) and the long post.

− − I recommend anyone who wants a good summary of Evola's world-view to read the forward in Revolt Against the Modern World.

− − Zeander (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

−

I agree with most of what you say and support atleast a partial revertion. A problem in Wikipedia, even if we are talking about a decent article, is focusing on a very narrow media sexy part. Race was just one subject Evola would write about, not the most important. The older article version had more diverse set of information. --Pudeo (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

− − Evola was an ethusiastic fascist for a good amount of their time in power. He criticized them only because they wouldn't listen to him to the degree he thought they should but he never broke from them in any significant way. This sounds a lot like the special pleading one hears for D'annunzio. Just because they disagreed with certain fascist actions hardly makes them anti-fascist. BS6 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This article has been eviscerated and left to rot like Prometheus

Over the past few months I've had this article on my watchlist and remained relatively silent, holding my tongue due to the collective gaze of many..."interests" who have descended upon the corpse of this article I initially tagged for NPOV and pecked and tore out sinew and guts to restructure it in a beaten, mangled and grotesque form in the cruelest twist of irony by my own hand that I have ever witnessed.

I mean, we went from an article that wasn't that bad I guess in hindsight to a lede making claims about admiration of rape and the silliest labels and misreadings by tabloid """RELIABLE SOURCES""" like bloody Quartz magazine and just...reading over this article has made my brain shut down. What a horrific bloody massacre. It's almost depressing. If you think the average person is going to chance upon this article and see this nebulous facade and have favorable opinion of our site as an arbiter of neutrality, you are going to regret it. I apologize for the melodrama, but enough is enough. This article's recent history is the summa cum laude of a compendium of propaganda and is an insult for what we stand for. I'm not the first — and I certainly will NOT be the last — to complain and get a foul bitter taste in my mouth reading this garbage. But it's mangled messes like this that have garnered nothing but suspicion in the eyes of every Tom, Dick, and Sally who comes here.

In a way, this is all my fault. And perhaps I deserve it for tagging so impetuously. I love this site but the abuse and bias disguised under bureaucratic platitudes tolerated if not encouraged by the status quo is nauseating. Seems like respect for articles about people doesn't apply for those controversial in the contemporary era, which I would be surprised and concerned if that didn't happen to be honest. Regardless, this is all I will say, and I won't bother cleaning up any mess. It's not like anyone interested in the guy will be very trusting of Wikipedia anyway. Enjoy your tabloids.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy edit requested

I just tagged this article as needing copy editing. I read the article for the first time today, and found it very poorly written, even if it does seem well researched. It needs editorial work to make the language flow better, and to harmonize the different claims and arguments of the article.

I note from the previous sections on this talk page that there has been a lot of conflict about recent changes to the page, with several editors expressing preference for older versions of the page on the grounds that they were more coherent, and less defamatory to Julius Evola.

Based on the above, it seems that what is needed is for a neutral editor who has not yet been invested in this page, to try to harmonize the older version of the page with the present version, and discern where the older version was inaccurate, versus where the new version has detracted from readability or neutrality. - Wwallacee (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Steve Bannon labeled a leader of the alt-right?

As someone with experience in the movements (and I can definitely provide sources if necessary), Steve Bannon is clearly not a part of, much less a leader of, the alt-right movement. He has associations with it, which the media picked up on, since he was a more public figure than the actual alt-right figureheads, thus leading to the impression that he was somehow a part of the movement. The alt-right itself is inherently white nationalist and anti-semitic, as seen in the likes of Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin, and Mike Peinovich, none of whom Bannon associates himself with, or with their ideologies. I think both Steve Bannon and the Alt-Right should be mentioned, perhaps next to each other, but it is very important that their being different is clarified. 71.56.140.220 (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Political Influence" section is far more accurate. The introduction should reflect this. 71.56.140.220 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific in what changes you would like to see? Please keep in mind WP:RS, also. In case this wasn't clear, we do not need or want sources about your own experience, we want reliable sources directly supporting added content. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As recently as last October, Evola was introduced as a CRITIC of fascism and Nazism.

What changed, aside from your editors now using Wikipedia to wage contemporary political battles? This is such a drastic revision that it discredits the entire site. 70.173.26.234 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The site has long been discredited on this front. Generally speaking when someone becomes involved in a contemporary controversy the introduction is very quickly transmogrified into a character assassination. We will have to wait a few years before this article can go back to an interesting description of a key traditionalist thinker and dissident. The current ideological/religious climate means its pointless trying to fight this for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.252.46 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2018‎

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Justifying" rape?!

I was shocked to find this utter nonsense in the article after having just read this part of The Metaphysics of Sex in the book itself. What Evola actually writes, not taken out of context and misrepresented: "if man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape, everything that in that pleasure can be related to the instinct of pride of first possession is only a surface element; the deepest factor is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her whom, in her ultimate root, in her »nakedness«, will never be possessed by the lust of the flesh; it is the desire to possess this »virgin« that acts obscurely in the desire to possess the physically intact woman or the woman who resist."

The whole subchapter is about male and female deep psychology; it aims at giving a description of rigidly existential, ontologic questions, namely how men and women "work" and why. In this specific case, he explains the reasons behind the metaphysical aspect of the phenomenon. There is NOTHING, nothing at all that could be understood as Evola suggesting the practice of rape, or deeming it acceptable, or even "understanbdable", in the sense that it would somehow diminish the raper's guilt. Anyone who reads it as a "justification" does so willingly, without doubt out of a contempt for the writer for his thoughts on what true femininity is and how women should act accordingly. Needless to say, this is, to say the least, untrue and disgusting.

So someone whose changes to the article won't be restored to this rubbish, please remove it from there. However much Evola's thoughts hurt today's society, depicting him as a depraved ideologue of rape IS in fact rape: that of his ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.199.123 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2017‎

interesting indeed. In the latest archiving by ClueBot III I found the following which seems to come in support of the source claiming rape advocacy by Evola.

The following excerpt from The Shadow of the Dalai Lama, the only non-established source recently being discussed for inclusion (which has nevertheless been referred to in notable sources), also 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)."[15]Gggtt (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Gggtt can help clarify this? Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiptrue (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies more on interpretation of primary sources by non-primary sources (such as this one) than it does on editor interpretations of non-primary sources. The discussion you cite is from before the article was overhauled and cites a source that is no longer used in the article. The quote that you provide says that a man's desire to rape a woman or to deflower a virgin are the same thing, a desire for "violating the inviolable." How is that not normalizing rape? The secondary source currently cited also cites Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex, finishing the quote that you cut off. Evola describes the supposedly omnipresent desire to violate virgins as "the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus." In other words, he says that it's normal to want to rape women. Combined with his undeniable views that women should be dominated by men (even violently so), one would have to be blind to not see that as justifying rape.

While your apparent belief in whitewashed interpretations of his works is your own business, we're not going to base the article on them per WP:NOR and WP:NOTCENSORED. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Some editors on this page use vocabulary that doesn't make wikipedia look neutral and trustworthy. Since when is describing a reality from a certain viewpoint the same as defending or advocating it. Evola actually always wrote about overcoming the human dimension/nature and not succombing to it. He absolutely ADVOCATED transcending man's human condition. His ideal vision of man was one of sexual abstinence, chastity, indifference towards the sex drive characterizing common man. Furthermore the source used by the editor to claim Evola advocated rape says nothing justifying such a statement as 'he advocated rape'. I quote:

"Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire, writing in Eros and the Mysteries of Love that “there is no difference” between “the desire to possess the physically intact woman, or the woman who resists” and “the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus.” In other words, all sex is rape and that’s why it’s pleasurable. Later in the same paragraph, Evola writes that “as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture.”

So do Wikipedia a favor and remove "advocating" because it turns reality upside down and infects the whole text with propagandistic hysteria. Xyz&123 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Your paraphrase that "all sex is rape and that's why it's pleasurable" and Evola's writing that "nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture" both strongly indicate that Evola endorsed rape. He is saying that rape is a good thing. Not only is it "pleasurable", he is saying hostile sex to the point of the woman's exhaustion is the most exciting feeling a man can experience. This is clear-cut. Your commentary supports the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are you serious? Evola, from his viewpoint/understanding of man, actually describes the processes at work in a male's sex drive at it's most subtle level and you are deducting from it that because he sees what he sees as reality means he endorses it. With "advocating" you even suggest he wants to promote/defend it. Come on! You even suggest he is saying that rape is a good thing!? Where do you read it? Are you blinded to the point that you just jump to the conclusion because it's the way your mind wants to understand it? You guys are making Wikipedia look ridiculous. Completely dominated by opinion. Even worse. If its not in line with a few editors ideology it has to be taken down by any means including blatant misrepresentation. That's not serious. That's super simplistic totalitarian propaganda level reasoning. It is the same as saying that the innocent witness who notices a killer's pleasure in the act of murdering endorses it because he saw it was pleasurable. Wow. I'll hold my breath now for a bit and come back. Just remember to read the source again. There is NOTHING in the source stating that Evola ADVOCATES rape. It is a creation of some editors somber/creepy mindset and you are not afraid to put your entire mental capacity in overshooting mode to defend it. You guys need get a grip and stop trying to rule according to your ideological sensitivities. This article is about Evola and NOT ABOUT YOUR OWN IDEOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA TARGETS. Let's be honest! Take the time and read the source again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz&123 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Funny how a few days ago (Revision as of 03:10, 11 May 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Grayfell (talk | contribs) you were lecturing someone editing this article claiming "we want reliable sources directly supporting added content". Now when it's your own then the "directly supporting" leaves place to absolute free interpretation as long as it's your very own opinion. Wow. Wow. Wow. What a lack of neutrality! What an incredible display of totalitarian ideological arrogance. Unfortunately for you, the world is not yet totally submissive, not yet ready for your ideological fantasy. Some still resisting...Xyz&123 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW "domination and rape as a component of his proposed sexual magic practices" not directly supported by the source. This whole sentence needs rewriting. Sure sounds shockingly bad which certainly was the goal but as a matter of fact it has nothing to do here.Xyz&123 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Therefor:

Accordingly, Evola advocated rape,[13] the "ritual violation of virgins",[5] and "whipping women" as a means of "consciousness raising",[5] so long as these practices were done to the intensity required to produce the proper "liminal psychic climate".[5] He wrote that "as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture."[13]

becomes:

Annalisa Merelli states "Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire", the "ritual violation of virgins",[5] and "whipping women" as a means of "consciousness raising",[5] so long as these practices were done to the intensity required to produce the proper "liminal psychic climate".[5] He wrote that "as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture."[13] Xyz&123 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

and for the lead:

Evola also advocated domination and rape as a component of his proposed sexual magic practices; this misogynistic outlook stemmed from his extreme right views on gender roles, which demanded absolute submission from women.[11][12][5][13]

becomes:

Evola also advocated domination of women and according to Merelli he "justified rape as a natural expression of male desire"; this misogynistic outlook stemmed from his extreme right views on gender roles, which demanded absolute submission from women.[11][12][5][13]Xyz&123 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

should actually say:

Evola also advocated domination of women and for Merelli he "justified rape" because he saw it "as a natural expression of male desire"; this misogynistic outlook stemmed from his extreme right views on gender roles, which demanded absolute submission from women.[11][12][5][13]80.94.108.96 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This is unacceptably ambiguous English. Evola did nothing to Merelli, and the use of sloppy attribution and scare quotes are neither neutral, nor WP:MOS compliant. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This is actually quite clear as regards the facts. Quotes directly taken from the "reliable source". Merelli refers to rape or unconsensual sexual relations driven by let loose totally unmastered human animal sex lusting. She says that Evola justifies rape. She considers him speaking of rape as something nested in a male as a justification for the actual act of raping. That's already a stretch. But ok it is the actual 'reliable source' so we're going to use it. Evola doesn't say every male rapes. He says it is nested in him but remains at purely psychic level. Un-accomplished on a practical physical level one can say.

"Content directly supported by reliable sources" (to quote you) is exactly that so I don't get it?

Or is it that you want to create confusion between actual rape and a disposition for it?

A disposition for lusting doesn't make every male let loose the lusting. Or, in every hunter lies a killer instinct therefor every hunter becomes a killer??? And by saying that hunters have a killer instinct one supports actual criminal killing????????? TOTAL OVERSHOOT!

Let's keep it with the actual "reliable source" because you are just pushing mind games. You don't show much interest in the actual facts. You have some agenda on this page which is far from the neutrality and compliancy Wikipedia is an encyclopedic example of. Xyz&123 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you are saying. Evola isn't a reliable source, and we must use reliable sources to explain his positions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we mainly rely on secondary sources. We do not interpret primary sources, instead we summarize reliable secondary sources. If we have some reason to think that Merelli isn't a reliable source, explain that. original research on Evola's intentions isn't acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You're good at delaying things. You know the sentence you are defending in the lead is wrong. It is not 'directly supported' by Merelli. But you still keep fighting every effort without actually proposing anything. Pure censorship and ideological dictatorship. And you ignore the discussion. Who cares. It's only about your opinion. WOW

Merelli says he "justified rape" because he saw it "as a natural expression of male desire". How can you summarize that? Because that's the only thing Merelli actually says 'directly' about this.

Would you be ok with: Merelli says he "justified rape"?

Xyz&123 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You insult me with vague accusations, don't actually answer any of my objections, and then ask if I would be okay with something I already removed? Try harder. If you don't think Merelli is a reliable source, explain why. Otherwise, what Merelli 'says' can be summarized as a simple statement without attribution, especially in the lede. This is supported by a plain and simple reading of both Merelli's comment, and the primary sources involved. Merelli is more of an authority on Evola than either of us, and we don't cast doubt on reliable sources without a reason. Your comments don't seem to use 'justified' in a way consistent with its definition, nor with the underlying idea being conveyed. Evola said that rape was both natural and positive. That can mean he tried to 'justified' it, or he 'advocated', or countless other ways to say the same thing. Whatever your objection is, please make it clearer, and at least try to make it shorter, also. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So why is Annalisa Merelli an author on Julius Evola? Because she has a master's degree in semiotics and has fouded a lifestyle website and writes for an American modern business website owned by Atlantic Media? Oh, and she's Italian like Evola! Funny that the article also claims that Steve Bannon "does not consider Evola's thinking problematic" because Bannon mentioned Evola by name once when he was describing Aleksandr Dugin. Please don't build articles on controversial historical thinkers based on trash like this. Also, generally avoid making sweeping statements based on one source (especially if it's just a journalist) - cherry-picking a conservative historian or a radical feminist scholar will bring different statements for sure. --Pudeo (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Greyfell: I think it would be preferable to find an additional source for this, if it is the original primary thought of one person then it's not necessarily suitable for inclusion, or if it is included attribution would be preferable even it is not strictly required. But if this is going to be in the lede it should probably be discussed in more then one source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not the original thought of one person, and it is already discussed by more than one source. The lede is an accurate summary of the body of the article, and we shouldn't use euphemisms, even if sources sometimes choose to. Is this about the word 'rape', or Evola's extreme view of sex? If it's about the word rape we shouldn't undermine a source because it's using clear language when others support it obliquely. If it's about his views, even more reason to accurately summarize it in plain language. Julius Evola#Misogyny and Sexual Magic only mentions the word 'rape' once, quoting Merelli, but the entire section supports this. ...women needed to be conquered, not ignored... He believed that in Tantra and in sexual magic, in which he saw a strategy for aggression... "ritual violation of virgins" as a means of consciousness raising,(!) and He wrote that "as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture." which has already been mentioned. These are not being mentioned by sources, with the arguable exception of the Lycourinos book, because they are part of his convoluted mysticism. They are mentioned by sources because of they explain Evola's view of women.

That said, there are plenty of serious sourcing problems in this article. Whitewashing isn't a step in the right direction, though. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've found multiple sources describing him as a misogynist. Merilli doesn't give citations, so she is primary for the opinion in this article. Even in sources discussing Evola and sexuality I don't see the word rape used. Misogynist can easily be sourced to multiple different sources. There may in fact be other sourcing issues in this article, and I don't know why this one in particular has been so enduring, but it wouldn't be whitewashing to add attribution and remove it from the WP:LEDE if it can't be sourced to multiple sources. I have to agree that Quartz is not a source that carries a lot of weight here and I wouldn't really consider Merilli a specialist opinion for this In most cases like this, we would remove it entirely as being WP:UNDUE. I am still looking to see if an additional source can be found, but if it can't then using "misogynist" would be preferable. (But this has been a long-standing content dispute and an RfC might be a good idea.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does it still say that he "advocated rape" when in multiple books and articles he opposes brutality, even despising boxing as too primitive? Acknowledging sinister animalistic elements in human nature is not the same as advocating them. Evola even agreed with Freud on this point (and on this point alone, he adds), yet we do not see Freud's article describing him as an advocate of incest! This is clearly a distortion and misrepresenation of Evola's position for political purposes and ought to be removed. Sceaf (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit battle is becoming silly, with the citations I agree its valid, but it does not belong in the overall summary. No-one could read Evolas work and think this is a key position or in fact anything more than an aside in a single work. Including it in the main summary is reminiscent of the dreadful "human embodiment of evil" line that used to be in the summary for Adolf Hitler. I propose moving this line into the main body of the text, Wikipedia is not a place to attempt character assassinations by overemphasising and selective quoting. If we want a controversial last line (as is semi traditional in these kinds of articles, I'll concede) his views on Jews were more concrete and (I believe) more valid to include if you insist on having a negative point. I would cite the example of the Martin Luther article, which does not mention his misogynistic writings on women in the summary. It reads like a hatchet job on Evola currently, largely because these edits obviously are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.193.21 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2017‎

Fringe Groups

In the second paragraph of the introduction, it is claimed that Evola is popular in "fringe circles". While this may be true, shouldn't an encyclopedia be a little more precise? 98.109.9.147 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Merelli is a joke of a source, he did not 'advocate rape,' he was not a 'nationalist/ultranationalist.'

Problems with this article -

1. What exactly are 'extreme metaphysical ideas' or for that matter 'extreme metaphysics?' Would you say a christian who believes in ghosts has 'extreme metaphysical ideas' or is this mindless hyperbole to paint someone as a wackjob?

2. 'Evola is popular in fringe circles' citation needed, 'fringe circles' doesn't mean anything concrete.

3. 'Extreme traditionalism' should be 'radical traditionalism' as extreme implies he is very traditional without actually espousing his traditionalism as a distinct political school or offering any thought on the matter. 'Extreme traditionalism' could mean someone who just behaves very traditionally.

4. 'Evola also advocated rape' define what it means to 'advocate rape' besides 'he didn't use enough negative adjectives when mentioning it for my liking.'

5. Having a pathetic source like Merelli being given this much weight in the article displays that the biased editors among you are clutching at straws. She is not an academic source, and her comments on Evola are of no more value than if Kim Kardasian had mentioned him, yet she is the word of god when it comes to his views on rape and anyone that disagrees (people who have read evola ) is 'whitewashing.'

6. He was not a nationalist, he despised nationalism and advocated a pan-european imperium throughout his life. He can barely be described as a fascist as he rejected biological race as a determining factor of national character/culture, and despised the 'mechanistic' outlook of societies that proceeded from the economic or were driven by 'revolutionary' sentiments, as fascism was.

7. Ian, Mark and Grayfell are reverting any and all edits when their views have been refuted multiple times on the talk page, because they know they have no arguments beyond 1. defending Merelli, who is as prejudiced as them 2. their feelings

79.69.118.137 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in your research on/summary of/feelings about Evola (or Merelli for that matter). You keep saying "refuted multiple times", but you have not done that to Wikipedia's standards. As has already been said many times, find reliable sources which summarize his position, because we don't care what any one editor personally believes is accurate any more than you care about our feelings. We are looking to reflect the modern consensus on Evola, and Merelli is still substantially better than nothing. We are not interested in summarizing his views according to his fans, we are looking for sources. Have more sources? let's see them. Have more opinions? No thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is incomplete to say that Wikipedia is here to: quote "reflect the modern consensus" on such and such.

Wikipedia is here to "report the various points of views" on such and such. Per WP:NEUTRAL.--DDupard (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

True, which is I grabbed the A. James Gregor source quoted earlier. Gregor has a whole chapter about Evola's complex relationship with Fascism and Neofascism. While he claims that he finds the identification of Evola as a Fascist problematic, he still admits he's been immensely influential on Neofascists (and that this was deliberate on Evola's part) and that the identification is otherwise almost universal (claiming that this is a result of disgusted laziness on the part all other scholars but him). His argument is more or less that Evola denounced and was denounced by specific contemporary Fascist movements (using a fine enough sieve that National Socialism ceases to be a kind of Fascism), because these movements didn't operate from a primarily spiritual perspective. He admits that Evola’s conviction was that by somehow mixing his sacred science with the surface features of Fascism and National Socialism, he might somehow increase its survival potential in the toxic modern world, this belief ...founded on the hope that he might use either or both as carriers for his Traditionalism. (p.98). This dissatisfaction really only became more explicit rejection after he was rejected and things started going downhill for the Axis powers. Even then, he admitted overlap between his ideas and Fascism. Gregor says nothing to dismiss Evola's advocacy of rape. Even if we were to give WP:UNDUE weight to Gregor (such that he would be the primary source for the article, and other material added only where it does not disagree with Evola), the only part of the IP's edit that would be an improvement would be the removal of the word "nationalism." The rest would be whitewashing by an Evola apologist with no obvious interest in our policies or in sources that disagree with his eternal truth. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in a balanced analysis of what he has written, as opposed to a biased series of attacks with a blogger as an academic source. You and grayfell are only interested in perpetuating your biased view of someone you have never even read because it fits your politics - you refuse to even get rid of the rubbish about him being a nationalist - and you have both clearly assumed that I adore him to justify your bias against rational editing. Do these sound like unbiased quotes from an objective editor?

Grayfell - 'He made stuff up and then justified it by saying it was spiritualism. Taken at face value his views are a joke, taken esoterically, his views are also a joke. The theatrical pretense of neutrality when dealing with WP:FRINGE garbage only legitimizes it.'

Grayfell - 'his views are contemptible'

An editor, openly admitting he isn't neutral and that he doesn't want to pretend to be. Disgusting.

Neither of you are in any way trying to find consensus, you are simply damning anyone who disagrees with you and your propagandist views. Neither of you have at any point tried to engage with the material, you simply find any 'sources' (I expect you'll be citing youtube comments as an academic source next) that mimic your irrational attacks and parrot them. You won't even concede the 'nationalist' point - or rather you will here, but are still unwilling to edit the article accordingly or allow anyone else to. Pathetic.

79.69.118.137 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's pretty clear you're another Evola apologist. We don't need to create artificial validity to fringe views, especially when they're espoused by an uncivil edit warrior who misreads statements and sources to suit his views and who creates strawman arguments when he fails to understand why things don't go his way. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, how is some no name blogger from qz.com(who is interested in Evola only as far as she can use him to score cheap political points) an acceptable source? She in no way represents or reflects any kind of academic consensus. 129.133.217.188 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to make any claims about academic consensus, you need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources specifically about the subject. It doesn't work to say "well, this source doesn't mention (fascism, rape, whatever)," you need to present sources that specifically argues:

• Evola was not a fascist (and Gregor admits that he is the only author arguing that Evola isn't a fascist, which indicates the academic consensus favors describing him as such)
• Evola was not trying to justify rape when he wrote “there is no difference” between “the desire to possess the physically intact woman, or the woman who resists” and “the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus” and “as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture”.

"Academic consensus" is not a magic word you can utter and immediately win any argument here. You have to present proof. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Mcgregor on nationalism is a perfectly salient point you're both refusing to acknowledge because it goes against the narrative you've constructed ie. pidgeonholing evola as a neonazi loon. I also love how you're balancing his quite nuanced analysis against, once again, the absolute joke of a source that Merelli is.

Burden of proof is on you and your lord and saviour Merelli when it comes to the 'rape advocacy' thing. I don't see how any of this 'advocates rape' -

“there is no difference” between “the desire to possess the physically intact woman, or the woman who resists” - ie. lust is separate from morality and sexual desire can manifest itself in these ways, it comes from the same place.

“the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus” So the male penetrative act is linked to sadism by the pain inflicted in defloration, which is a source of satisfaction to the male (no more rape than BDSM is). This may manifest itself in the ways already mentioned.

“as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the woman utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture” Male dominance, power. Again not rape, could easily be applied to bdsm dom male.

"Advocated rape" is not a magic phrase Merelli can invent with no basis in the source material, allowing you to win any argument here. You have to present actual sources.

Also please don't get so mad, ian. It's really rather uncivil. 79.69.119.23 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)