Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Religious reconciliation?

You have failed to mention that Julius Evola before his death he did act in reconciliation to the Roman Catholic Church seeing it as a alternative to American consumerism. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As upholding tradition (Roman Catholic Church) Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide a citation from a reliable source before the article can be changed to reflect this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Source: Julius Evola:A Philosopher For The Age Of The Titans By Joscelyn Godwin

His acceptance of organised religion such as Christianity as a alternative to mass consumerism as seen in the mechanistic approach of American society. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A Book not newspaper or Journal above.

Thank You Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is a foreward by Joscelyn Godwin and can be seen discussed by Julius Evola in the book: Revolt Against The Modern World.

(see section on Christianity in the book) Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide a direct quote from the book and the page number it came from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

According to his personal physician, whom I knew, he died a pagan, with pagan rites. His attitude to the Catholic Church in his late period was purely instrumental: it was one of those institutional relics of the past which, with the rise of the post-war American global hegemony, could be cultivated as a 'useful idiot' to counteract the new imperialism.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Supposed consensus

So supposedly a "consensus" regarding the designation "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" has been established in this article. On multiple occasions people say you are not allowed to edit this part of the article or you will get blocked for "editing against consensus". Can someone link me to the (talk)pages where this consensus has been established? Schenkstroop (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It's in the archives. I suggest that you do your own research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, where is this apparent 'consensus' that Evola should be known as an antisemite conspiracy theorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely well referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Evola isn't really infamous for being an 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist', so why is it in the lead? He may of made antisemitic remarks but that shouldn't be in the lead. Maybe a controversial views section might help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Given your snarky, empty, and completely useless replies, I am wondering who you are, or, more to the point, who you think you are. Evidently you think you are the boss of this article. Equally evident is your aim, which is to be sure that this article shows Evola in the worst light possible, while still nominally adhering to a factitious "objectivity". I have neither the time or the deep interest to do so, but my hope is that someone will knock you off your perch at some point soon. Pernoctus (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I see no consensus here, just strong viewpoints. Saying "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" about in the lead is in my humble view, is very misleading. branding is more in-tune with a certain nowadays strong politically emotional objectives (not consensus)and creating a straw man to fit a certain narrow narrative is not the sound WP-spririt we want. Let's have many solid sources and even more so in the more politically excitable subjects. The more academic (academically aloof) the better the source and not just political opinion contributors from easy read magazines writing to like-minded activists. Jacob Zumba (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is indeed a consensus, and the description is well sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

So you assert, emptily, without an iota of evidence or references. Pernoctus (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Evola and totalitarianism

In the Post-World War II section, the article states that "Evola attempted to dissociate himself from totalitarianism, preferring the concept of the "organic" state". While this is certainly true, the framing of this statement, particularly the inclusion of the world "attempted to" seems a bit biased. In his Autodifesa, or self-defense statement in 1951, he states that -

1. I am opposed to totalitarianism, counterposing to it the ideal of an organic, differentiated State, and considering “fascist hierarchism” as a deviation. In Orientamenti, pp. 13-14, one reads that totalitarianism represents a wrong direction and the abortion of the need for a virile and organic political unity: “Hierarchy is not hierarchism—the latter an evil that is trying to flourish in a minor mode today—and the organic conception has nothing to do with sclerotic statolatry or a leveling centralization.” I have taken an antitotalitarian position even more extensively and energetically in an article that I submit to the Court entitled “Stato organico e totalitarismo” [The Organic State and Totalitarianism], which appeared in Lotta Politica, the official organ of the MSI. I have defended the same thesis, transposed to the cultural plane, in the incriminated essay in Imperium (no. 2) where, criticizing the ideas of the writer Stending, I recognize with him that the evil from which modern culture is suffering is its fragmentation, due to the paralysis of a central, directive idea; but I oppose the totalitarian solution, in which there is not a spiritual, super-elevated, and transcendent principle, but rather the brutal political will to tyrannically enslave and unify the culture, of which we see the ultimate result in Sovietism.

2. A specifically Fascist conception was that of the so-called “ethical State” of Gentile. I have harsh words for it (Orientamenti, pp. 20-21). Some like to depict Fascism as an “oblique tyranny.” During that “tyranny” I never had to undergo a situation like the present one. As things stand in this regard, the axiom that I take from Tacitus is: “The supreme nobility of the rulers is not to be masters of slaves, but of lords who also love liberty in those who obey them” (p. 14).

Although it might be tiresome to read the whole text, I suggest you do. It is impossible to be having seen this statement, and misinterpret his anti-totalitarian stance as merely a political attempt to distance himself from fringe elements. I do believe he was genuinely opposed to it in his philosophy, and I therefore suggest the word "attempted to" to be removed to make the article less biased. Thanks Based47 (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree --Zaynab1418 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete the section of views on caste/class?

Why do you people insist on removing anything that does not primarily concern race and gender?

He criticised other far-right thinkers for not being "aristocratic" enough and believe society was determined by the regression of castes.

I cited a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 12:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@AverroesII: (Copying reply from my talk page here) Tthis diff seems to have removed a bunch of content, and this one added a bunch (but with all of the formatting and metadata stripped, i.e. the citations were all just bare text [1] and [2]). I don't know exactly what happened, but I don't think it was supposed to. jp×g 19:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. AverroesII (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

SD service

Do we have more information about when he served in the SD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What the hell did he do between 1922 and 1951?

Currently, there is an enormous hole in the Life section during what I'd assume to be a few fairly important years -- being, as he was, a fascist, and living in Italy in the 1930s. Presumably he did fascist things... but what were they? Surely' we have a source that can speak to this. jp×g 10:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Is there a reason you removed those couple of sentences I added, or was this a mistake you made while reverting the other editor? jp×g 08:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: As long as you don't touch the conspiracy theorist part, you're welcome to reinsert your edit. Whitewashing of fascists gets reverted on the spot, that was my intention. Sorry if it seems heavy handed. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I don't have any interest in your edit war with AverroesII. The text I added, in its entirety, was He published books in 1928,<ref name="Furlong 2011" /><ref name=gregor2006/> 1937,<ref name="sedgwick2"/> 1941<ref name="Rota2008"/> and 1943.<ref name="forum"/>. I would appreciate if you were more careful when reverting. jp×g 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

He was in the intelligence agency of Nazi Germany but I don't know what exactly he did there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Views on class/caste

I think we should include Julius Evola's idealised "caste" or class system: lead by the King followed by other nobles (warriors and ascetics) then the bourgeoisie and, finally, at the bottom, the proletariat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 12:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Why was it worth a seperate section? Especially considering this historical analysis of society is quite common Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A simply antisemite or not?

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke book Black Sun which is used as sources describes Evolas antisemitism as methapsycial, like that of Otto Weininger (himself a Jew). According to this book Evola rejected the chief nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg and other biological racist as views that where reductionist and materialistic. He held as Weininger, that Jewry was only a symbol for individualism and economic materialism. So, according to the only good academic source used in the Evoal WP article, he cannot be labelled as straight out/bona fide antisemite and biological racist. Furthermore, Goodrick-Clarkes Black Sun does not say Evola is a conspiracy theorist. Or maybe being just critical of Israel is just simple antisemitism? Labels - depends who's political narrative it serves... Jacob Zumba (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)* Anna Momigliano (Atlantic article) is just one journalist, a political hack, not a proper source. Good for hatchet jobs and simplistic character assassinations, not really solid, multiple WP standards.

WP:NONAZIS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations tgeorgescu, you played the Hitler Card, https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/694/274/fc5.pngv False equivalence, Straw man, Godwin's law. Jacob Zumba (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing antisemitic conspiracy theorists is not allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Dear WP:SPAs, you have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Take care of WP:NONAZIS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations tgeorgescu, you played again the Hitler Card, https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/694274-godwins-law - You really seem to like it, but —> Wikipedia:Gaming the system, WP:ETIQ, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Jacob Zumba (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you're supposed to be a newbie, how do you know about those? See also Reductio ad Hitlerum#Limits to classification as a fallacy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does the consensus say that Julius Evola didn't advocate a class system he referred to as a caste system?

Also Julius Evola condemning some (but not all) Nazi views was mentioned by a reliable source (Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke).

This in no way can be taken as justification of anti-Semitic aspects of his thought, it is not acceptable to be Anti-Semitic

Okay, I have restored that part about Jewry. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool, what about the bit about his views on caste/class?

Trying to get infobox to work?

I'm trying to embed Infobox philosopher onto infobox spy, is this possible?

If not how can I embed them both on to infobox person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 10:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

1937-1938 "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" by J. Evola in Italian - at least 5 Editions (See WorldCat link below)

WorldCat: https://www.worldcat.org/title/protocolli-dei-savi-anziani-di-sion-versione-italiana-con-appendice-e-introduzione/oclc/234090785/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.126.25 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hardliners

Many Communist hardliners have become Eastern Orthodox hardliners after the fall of the Communist regimes. So, this is by no means unusual, and there is no reason to suspect that Dugin would be insincere in respect to his own faith. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting of June-August 2022

A major rewriting of this article since June, particularly the top, appears to have removed references to more than a dozen sources and removed substantial information. WP:PRESERVE says we should respect "a succession of editors' efforts" and provide clear reasoning for deletions of reliably sourced content, but reasons have not been given on the talk page or edit summaries for most of the deletions. I think some of the deleted information should be restored, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:WEIGHT, if it was a faithful representation of third-party WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the article was not written in a neutral point of view and suffered many issues which were not confined to its prose. Many, many of the sources provided fictitious or outright slanderous statements on Evola's works and philosophy - one of which even stated that he advocated bestiality! The article degraded rapidly in the past couple of years and placed far too much emphasis on his post-mortem influence with quasi-fascist movements. I am being lambasted for not preserving falsehoods and should be restricted from improving the article? It did nothing to summarise Evola's core philosophy, nor recount his genuine contribution to the fields of esotericism or mysticism . I took an extended break from improving the article because I am still yet to research more - I cannot continue without being supplied with the proper knowledge. There is more yet to come from me, and I would hate for my efforts to be needlessly hindered. And contentious according to who? Just one editor who has been deleting this over the weeks. Evola was not an anti-fascist and his links to the movement, witting or otherwise, are not neglected in this article. ♦ jaguar 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The proper procedure would have been to take each fictitious or outright slanderous source to WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I should have, though I found it much easier to perform a rewrite. My editing style is often performed with a bludgeon, much to people's chagrin. ♦ jaguar 22:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, the gist is that:

His works are mostly seen as the self-indulgent ramblings of a failed dilettante. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

He was catering at the cultic millieu, dabblers in occultism loved his books. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Often per WP:DUE we describe a disagreement between reliable sources without deleting them. Jaguar, did the sources you termed fictitious or outright slanderous conflict with the assessments of any other third-party reliable sources? Were there other reasons to decide they were unreliable? Llll5032 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors can improve an article based on WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:STEWARDSHIP at any time. I don't think anyone lambasted or needlessly hindered. We are supposed to edit by WP:CONSENSUS and improve the article based on the highest quality WP:INDY sources, for "non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views". Llll5032 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

My wishes for this article are: Evola has to be described as a kook and as antisemitic, for the rest I don't care enough about Evola to have a dog in this fight. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Some of the edits appear to have deleted or downplayed[1][2][3] references to antisemitism or connections to Nazis. There may be more that I missed. Llll5032 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I edited the "Views on Jews" section, attempting to match the tone and facts in the cited sources, and re-labeled its sub-heading "Antisemitism". Please look. Llll5032 (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I added citation-needed tags to the fourth paragraph because I can't find where several claims in it are cited in the rest of the article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here again perfect display of the destroy anything instructional pack attacks this article has to endure since years. Always lead by editors who know very well the wikipedia procedures, not much about Evola, and who's only goal is to openly discredit, disparage and vilify. 2A01:CB01:2002:BF63:2C48:E3AA:E294:E3E1 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you do that? Citations are redundant in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. This is proof that you haven't read the article as it's already mentioned in the body. Evola was a consistent critic of Mussolini and was ostracised in Fascist Italy - that much is made clear even in the most rudimentary academic sources. He was mainly apolitical and his relationship with fascism is complicated. My rewrite is merely a quarter complete - all I ask for is patience. ♦ jaguar 09:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Any claims made clear even in the most rudimentary academic sources should be easy to cite. Also, have you read WP:FOC, WP:3RR, and WP:OWN? Llll5032 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not edit warred nor professed ownership. ♦ jaguar 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This looks like three reverts [4][5][6] in 12 hours. The right procedure would be compromise edits (WP:BRB), tags, or discussions instead. Llll5032 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You've just turned the article to shit and have undone most of my rewrite. You've demonstrated that you do not understand Evola nor good writing by re-adding erroneous statements and over-emphasis on post-mortem influence with fringe movements, and by inserting American gossip as credible sources, in the lead section no less. I will not debate, discuss or humour these changes. I suspect that you thought I was whitewashing the article and wished to revert it back to a 'safe narrative' in a typical Wiki drone-like fashion. I'm not going to justify myself, for this discussion is evidence that any reason phases through you. My intention is to bring this article to FA - and it will be achieved through writing this article in a neutral point of view, with credible academic sources. ♦ jaguar 12:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The edits to the top (which were made by another editor, not me) were better sourced than what was replaced. Most of your rewriting of the article has not been undone. If we focus on content and follow WP:BESTSOURCES we will be able to bring the article to FA. Llll5032 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I restored more information and sources that had been deleted recently, and added additional information from high quality sources. Because Evola is a controversial subject, some of the sources may be in disagreement; if so, we can follow the WP:VOICE and WP:PRESERVE guidelines. Llll5032 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly added two summary sentences in the first and third paragraphs. They are are meant to follow MOS:LEADREL ("reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources") and cite WP:BESTSOURCES. I would welcome more editing to improve the emphases and style. Llll5032 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I also WP:BOLDly added some cited third-party interpretation to the third paragraph, per WP:INDY. Llll5032 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)