Talk:Julius Evola

The Website of the Julius Evola Foundation

I've delete the link to the bebsite of the Julius Evola Foundation. The domain has been acquired from a society that is taken care of publicity. The society uses the notoriety of Julius Evola in order to attract visitors. The Foundation at the moment does not have a domain. Information about Foundation are here (in italian).

Esotericist author

I would'nt say Evola was an esotericist author. He was deeply in influenced by esotericism, but (with some exceptions) he didn't write esoteric books as such. Evolas field of writing was more philosophy, cultural studies, «Kulturkritik» and so on. --62.203.1.120 07:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Neofascist

Perhaps I'm confused, but could someone explain how it's possible to be a fascist and a neofascist at the same time? Neofascism, as I understand it, is a modern movement that consciously adheres to a sort of "reborn" Nazi ideology &c, and as such it's rather hard to see how it could apply to someone who was contemporary with the original movement. Cantara 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He lived a long life and intersected both Italian Fascism and modern Neo-Fascism. Not only that, he called himself an anti-anti-Fascist. By amplifying the article and placing what had already been written into chronological order, i think the use of these terms is now clearer. Catherineyronwode 02:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics

It strikes me that this page has entirely too much information and speculation about Evola's politics. Out of his many books only two deal explicitly with politics (one of which advocates apolitea). He is far more concerned with metaphysics and symbolism--with determining the "way" or various "ways" that men can follow in order to reach enlightenment in our age "the Kali Yuga". While his politics are important, they are primarily important in relation to his main ideas or to his biography respectively. I am therefore advocating rewriting this page to have biography section separate from a section about Evola's views, and to divide up the work on politics present on the page now into those two sections. I believe that this will give a clearer idea of who Evola was and at the same time conform better to wikipedia's prefered format for other important thinkers. If anyone has any objections or suggestions please let me know.

The above author did not sign his or her name. My watchlist indicates the comment is by User:Lholder -- who does not have a personal page and whose contributions consist almost entirely of articles about fascists and neo-Nazis, including music bands that use such imagery.

i have moved the portion on sex magic (from "Early Years") and the portion on political theory (from "Politics") into the section on "Philosophy" and renamd it "Occult Philosophy." This is not what Lholder proposed, but it preserved the flow of the article.

I suggest that if Lholder has any information to add about Evola's belief in the Kali Yuga, he or she should simply add it.

I am very wary of seeing this article "rewritten" by the very person who contributed so heavily to its former state of fascist apologetics. When i found it, it was a puff piece empty of references to what Evola actually said about sex magic (the rape quote) or about Aryanism (the Hyperborean Nordic Altantean material), and consisted of little more than a string of unidentified names and a list of book titles that lead nowhere but to stub pages consisting of titles only.

All articles about fascists and anti-Semites at WP seem to be contested ground, with the pro-fascist and anti-Semitic apologists consistently softening the articles.

• Sometimes the fascist apologists claim that there are excuses for fascistic beliefs (see the Mircea Eliade article and talk pages -- "he was young, he wouldn't have done this all his life, forgive him his youthful indescretions" blah blah blah).
• Sometimes the fascist apologists divert attention from the information by lower-casing the word "fascist" (even when, as in Evola's case, the man was a member of the Italian Fascist party -- and, yes, i went through and upper-cased it).
• Sometimes the fascist apologists try to downplay fascism and anti-Semitism in the biographies of those they admire by mislabelling factual data as "speculation" (see the above comment by Lholder, claiming that this page "has entirely too much ... speculation").
• Sometimes the fascist apologists rewrite history by using oddly skewed language (as in h Evola article, which, when i found it, after many edits and revisions by Lholder, contained this unusual statement: "He [Evola] was one of the first people to greet Mussolini after his rescue from prison. " Mussolini's "rescue from prison"? A war criminal's "rescue from prison"?? Can you say "slightly biased"? Sure you can.)
• Sometimes the fascist apologists whine and complain that the mention of the person's politics is "irellevant to his scholorship" (see Eliade again), even when fascist philosophy can be demonstrated to permeate the published writings (as in the case of Evola).
• Sometimes the fascist apologists seek to claim great influence for fascistic authors after death. (This was the case in the Evola article; as i found it, world-wide influence was claimed, even though most of the man's works are not available in English translation and this is the English language Wiki; i added a short graph explaining that he was not popular with US occultists and was rewarded by anonymous vandalism that referred to the US as "the philo-Semitic US").
• Sometimes the fascist apologists seek to remove from biographies of Nazi occultists any mention of commonly shared beliefs that might link them together, hoping to present each indiviidual in the best light, not kooky-seeming, and diminishing a reader's ability to learn about and grasp the shared concepts that distinguish Nazi occultists from other occultists (an egregious example, relevant to this discussion, occurred right here in the Evola article: earlier versions contained the line "Evola believed in a race of Hyperborean "nordic" people from the North Pole who had a crucial hand in the founding of Atlantis" -- but in the edit of 22:19, December 1, 2005 this was removed, and the only comment left explaining the removal was "updated and corrected text" (an untrue comment , since the data WAS correct) -- and the person who took out this important (and factually verifiable) information? ... why, none other than user:Lholder, of course! (how did you guess?) -- and, oh, yes, i reinstated the data).

This article may benefit from revision, but i for one do not like the idea of Lholder rewriting it. I oppose it. I think that if Lholder wishes to bring forth more of what he or she considers interesting about Evola's occultism, and thus restore balance to the piece, that would be great. But an editor who already has REMOVED material about Evola's "nordic" occultism and who has let the Mussolini "rescue from prison" line stand, who has no user page, who writes almost exclusvely about fascists and Neo-Nazis, and who says that this article "has entirely too much information and speculation about Evola's politics" is not someone i want to entrust with rewriting the article.

Catherineyronwode 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of fascist apologetics corrupting the NPOV of articles needs to be addressed here on Wilipedia. There does seem to be periodic efforts to sanitize certain entries by removing references to fascist, Nazi, antisemitic, Aryanist, and white supremacist ideological leanings or activities. we need to strive to be fair in writing entries, but we should not allow apologists for fascism and racism to sanitize entries.--Cberlet 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I am most emphatically NOT an apoligist for Fascism, and in fact all the examples you cited were not written by me, and I would agree 100% with your assesment of them. I write about Fascism because it is one of my interests in an intellectual way. I still contend that Evola is a complicated figure, whose importance is not primarily his connection to Fascism, but in his other works. I also believe, however that his connection to Fascism is important, but should not be overstated. For instance he was NOT a member of the Fascist party as you contend, and in fact was vehemently against many of its policies. My criticism was mostly with a lack of balance and that, in fact, many are too quick to label Evola a Fascist and leave it at that, when in fact, his relationship with Fascism is not so clear cut. I would repeat again that none of the edits that so concern you were, in fact mine, and that I agree with you that that sort of vandalism should be avoided. I only wish to make the Evola page more informative and balance about this challenging writer. Furthermore I believe that much of what is on this page is in fact speculation, for instance the comment aobut Evola "moving deeper into politics" with his introduction to the Protocols of the Elder's of Zion. I for one, have never read that introduction, and have no opinion about its significance to Evola's work. I would, however, say that a work like the Protocols, is inconsistent with Evola's view on race, an entry for which I am writing now. If anyone has any ideas rather than insinuations like "moving deeper into politics" about this point I would welcome work on it.

Finally I would advise you to consider more carefully labeling someone you know nothing about a "Fascist apologist" simply because he is interested in Fascism. There is a world of difference. I will also put up a personal page, if that would help you to resist ad hominem attacks on me, but I don't see how that is relevant. I am also relatively new to wikipedia and occassionally make mistakes, like not signing my name on this talk page, and I ask for patience and forgiveness. --Lholder 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a Biography section that should exemplify what I intended to say in my first comment. For the moment it makes the rest of the page feel even more disorganized than it was before, but I am working on a section about his philosophy, political and otherwise that will hopefully rectify the problem. Again, if anything in what I have written comes accross as an apology for Fascism, please change it, I intend no such thing. --Lholder 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

One more note, I hope that I haven't removed any pertinent information from the page, if I have, please reinsert it, but I think that the format is better, and more organized this way.--Lholder 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Reformatting

I have added a long section on Evola's philosophy, in which I include, I believe all of the information about it that was previously on the page. As you can see I have not yet written the section on politics or finished consolidating the section on "post war writings", but it is close to bed time now so I will do it tomorrow. As you can see the section on sex magic is very short (I have not yet read his book "The Yoga of Power") so if anyone who has read it can add more.... The section on the doctrine of awakening is likewise short, I am reading that book now. Furthermore the bit about the Hyperborean Nordic Aryan race I just copied from what was on the page already. I will reread the relevant portions of "Revolt Against the Modern World" in order to expand it, but whoever wrote it at first seemed to have a different source, what is that source, does anyone know? --Lholder 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see you have put a lot of work into your rewrites. I can see that you now have a user page as well. Thanks for both. The latter makes it easier to see you as a member of WP and not a "drive by". As for the former, i will wait until you are finished with your rewrites before commenting further, but i can tell you that i already see the use of special "sanitized" and "softened" language, treating with kid gloves things which are actually harsh and vicious. There is also evidence of burying important material inside long 'graphs, and i shall pull some of that out of entombment when it is my turn to run through the material. I suggest that a good source *in English* for the Hyperborean "Nordic" material you were questioning is Jocelyn Godwin's "Arktos". Thanks for all the time you've put into this piece. We still have serious, serious disagreements, but courtesy should allow us to reach a compromise. Time for bed here, too... catch you later. Catherineyronwode 05:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what specifically you find to be "sanitized" or "softened" so that I can avoid it in the future. I find that what I have written, is, on the contrary, balanced between what I would call "Evola's view of himself" and "the critics view of Evola." If I give EITHER view too much weight, I would be more than happy to see it changed. I think, however, that in an article on Evola, his "view of himself" should come first, even if its not the one given the most weight. If placing the criticism of Evola after his "view of himself" causes the criticism to be "buried... inside long graphs" maybe the page should have a separate section for criticism, or contrary viewpoints about Evola's work so that it can be featured more prominently.

I myself have not read the Godwin book, and would like to see the single line reference to it, which I find vague and uninformative, expanded and explained so that someone, ignorant as I am about the subject, can understand it.

I thank you for your courtesy in your latest response and I hope that in the future we can keep debate about this page civil and keep the focus on making it a better entry rather than attacking eachother. --lholder 09:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the recent rewrite by lholder to have distanced Evola from the more serious published criticism of him. This may not be the intent, but the outcome is to sanitize this entry in an way that serves as an apologia for Evola's racist and antisemitic views. To describe the "Protocols" as "the anti-semitic Russian propaganda essay" is a perfect excample. The Protocols are a crude and vicious antisemitic forgery used by the Nazis to whip up hatred of Jews as handy scapegoats; and to justify genocide against the Jews of Europe. It is my understanding that Evola was researching in the Freemasonry archives to pursue this conspiracist line of research into alleged secret societies. The Protocols claim that the (nonexistant) Jewish secret council manipulated the Freemasons. There is a reason that Evola is a hero to some current neonazis. Evola was clearly a complicated intellectual--he was also an ally of the Nazis and promoted many of their core themes. Just because Evola used big words and wrote smooth text should not distract us from his core beliefs: racist, antisemitic, and a tactical pro-Nazi as a defense against egalitarianism and collectivism.--Cberlet 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the line about the "Protocols," I copied it word for word from what was already on the page, precisely in order to avoid accusations of sanitizing what has been written. If you can think of a better way to phrase it go ahead. As I said before I know nothing about Evola's work on that document (the reprehensible significance of which I understand) so I would appreciate it if someone who does would expand the section.

I also would like to point out that I have not read "the more serious published criticism" of Evola. My focus on writing this page is trying to explain what his ideas were. If someone else wants to write about the criticism they are welcome to. I do not feel that I should be held responsible for writing something that I know nothing about. In general I find that the criticism of me on this talk page concerns no so much what I write, but what I don't write. I should not be held responsible for information I don't have. If you have it write it yourself.--lholder 10:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have finished my work on "major reformatting" so if you have been waiting for me do so before you edit it in order to find a better sense of balance please do now.--lholder 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorelian

I find this sentence curious: "He expressed disillusionment with the idea that a revolution and subsequent return to a more enlightened state of civilization was possible, and his political views took on a Sorelian flavor." Is the disillusionment that Evola felt Sorelian (as the sentence implies now) or is his idea of revolution and subsequent return Sorelian? I know nothing about Sorel, and I find the reference unclear. If someone who does know could clarify it, that would be helpful.--lholder 10:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the "Sorelian" descriptor based on this passage in the Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890: "Increasingly his reaction to a world of 'urban jungles', socialist tendencies and expanding democracy was one of apoliteia and anarcho-nihilist rejection; the greatest hope lay in a resurrection of a multinational elite Waffen-SS in defense of the West (he had called the SS 'a biological and spiritual elite of the Third Reich on a model with the [medieval] Teutonic Order'). The late Sorelian turn of Evola's thought ('it is not a question of contesting and polemicizing but of blowing everything up') was reflected in the young Milanese neo-fascist slogan, 'Sorel, Evola, Drieu la Rochelle'." —Morning star 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi/Criticism

I feel as though a lot of the contention about this page could be solved if there were a section dealing exclusively with criticisms of Evola and/or a section on his relationship to Neo-Nazi/Neo-Fascist groups. As I have indicated I do not feel I possess the knowledge to write such a section and I have just finished doing a lot of work and want to take a break. I merely offer it as a suggestion for dealing with the issues raised on this page.--lholder 10:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem, lholder, is that you felt comfortable to accomplish a major rewrite on a controversial figure, but then are upset when it is pointed out that the outcome is to sanitize the criticism. It is as if I decided to rewrite the page on Hitler and reformatted it to focus primarily on his ideas as expressed in his writings, and heralded his love of opera, painting, and dogs. I leave it to others to raise any criticisms...

You say "I should not be held responsible for information I don't have." That is not a very high standard for an editor of an encyclopedia, is it?

I also do not think that criticism in an entry should be limited to a segregated section of criticism.

It is not uncommon for editors to object to a major rewrite that only deals with one small slice of the larger topic. Criticism can be harsh here at Wikipedia, and I apologize if I am coming across as too hard on your work, which clearly involved much time and energy. But it would be nice if you would accept some responsibility for the outcome of your edits, which is to have softened the criticism of Evola in a way that unbalances the entry and strays from an NPOV approach.--Cberlet 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think adding a section that deals with the subject matter of the bulk of an author's work is "one small slice of the larger topic." And your analogy to Hitler is misleading. The main historical importance of Hitler is the Nazi party, WWII and genocide and clearly NOT his "love of opera, painting and dogs." The primary importance of Evola is either his esoteric writing or his relationship to Fascism. Before my edit the page was almost exclusively about the latter. Now it is approximately half-and-half. If adding information about Evola's esoteric writing has the effect of de-emphasizing his relationship to Fascism, that is, I think, only appropriate considering that it is only half of the story. That said, I do not believe that the page should in any way "sanitize" Evola's relationship to Fascism, although it should be honest about it. I would also like to add that almost none of what is in my edit concerning Fascism was written by me, but was instead consolidated into a better (in my opinion) format. Futhermore I think that any talk of sanitization is a mischaracterizion of what I have done, as I have harldy altered a word of what was said about his relationship to Fascism, I have instead reformatted the page and added a section that deals with what is arguably Evola's most significant contribution--his writing.

I want to reiterate that Evola's ideas are in NO WAY "one small slice of the topic" although they are clearly not the whole story. --lholder 11:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just felt the need to say that as a student of Evola, I agree with Lholder here. The vast bulk of Evola's writings were on esoteric topics. To define him as a fascist or as a Nazi is ridiculous. Should the Ezra Pound page be rewritten to focus primarily on his support of fascism? Of course not. Evola was never a member of either the Nazi or Fascist party. In fact, the Fascists had him under serious investigation due to anti-fascist writings, and the Nazis did also for the same reasons. He undoubtedly tried to use both governments for his own purposes, and failed in trying to do so. He was, first and foremost, a Traditionalist writer. It seems that perhaps many who are editing this page are operating on hearsay about Evola rather than on the man’s own writings. Simply read Men Amongst the Ruins, for example, and you will see him there telling the neo-fascists to give it up and attempt toward a self-realization through spiritual methods. He advocates an apolitical stance. It aggravates me when an astounding intellectual is endlessly surrounded by talk of fascism, merely because of the political over-sensitivity of people.

A final note: a comparison of Evola with Hitler is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Evola was never a member of any political party, and got himself into trouble by criticizing anti-Semitism, specifically his statement that there were Jews who better exhibited the qualities that the Nazis upheld than many Germans themselves. As it stands now, this page is seriously biased, and not in the direction of “softening.” I find that this page is seriously lacking in the NPOV department, and hopefully I will soon have the time to correct some of this erroneous information, and with better sources than are currently listed.Spacelord 10:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Spacelord wrote: "He advocates an apolitical stance."

Evola may seem to have been "apolitical" to you, but is not held as such by others.

Anti-Semitism, as Evola practiced it, was political. For instance, he wrote an introduction to -- and PUBLISHED -- an Italian edition of the highly political and anti-Semitic tract the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Note the word "published." This word WAS on the page, prior to rewrites by an Evola supporter, who deleted it. I have reinstated it.

You yourself made a deletion of the "Category:anti-Semitic people" with a comment line that Evola was "not anti-Semitic." The cat has been reinstated, along with a link to an article by Umbrto Eco, an Italian intellectual in his own right, who discusses Evola's anti-Semitism and his publication of the "Protocols." I have also inserted direct quotes from Evola that leave no doubt that he was not only anti-Semitic.

You took out the mention of Miguel Serrano as a follower of Evola, yet on the Serrano page, Evola is listed as Serrano's greatest influence. I reinserted the Serrano mention, of course.

He wrote for a Fascist journal. He published the "Protocols" in italy. These are political acts. He was an influence on Miguel Serrano; this belongs in the section on who he influenced.

Please understand that Evola is never going to be seen as apolitical. He wrote for the Fascists (without joining the party). He renounced Dadaism, an art moovement to which he had belonged, on the grounds that its founder was a Jew. He published an Italian edition of the most notorious anti-Semitic tract of all time. He personally greeted Musolini when the Nazi's broke the latter out of jail. When italy surrended, he moved to Nazi Germany. These are all political acts.

Cordially, Catherineyronwode 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the not the first time I read it on the discussions of Wikipedia: It is true Evola wrote an introduction to the italian first translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion but what makes you state he "PUBLISHED" it? what is your source? For what I know the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were published in Italy in various versions between 1921 and 1937 by "La Vita Italiana" edited and founded by Giovanni Preziosi. Preziosi is also cleary pointed out in the front page of the book as the editor, and the introduction of Evola (if I remember well) was wrote for the last reprint (1937). I deleted the verb "published" again, since it states something incorrect.

Ialkarn 18:50, 12 August 2007

Dadaism was one of the various youthful Evola's experiences, it was part of his pre-traditional period where individualism was still strong in him, he abbandoned it like many other individiualistic orienteded paths. This isn't a free interpretation but what Evola stated himself in his spiritual biography "Il cammino del Cinabro" and in various interviews released in the last part of his life.

Catherineyronwode wrote: "He renounced Dadaism, an art movement to which he had belonged, on the grounds that its founder was a Jew"

To know Evola "discovered" his friend Tzara as jew (the founder of Dadaism),like it was some sort of secret in the anti-semitic post bellic Europe (1916-20 that is), sounds quite bizarre. According with the previous sentence, when he wrote very enthusiastic and positive reviews about the novels of Gustav Meyrink and the ebraic esoteric pieces of Gershom Sholem, both jews, he should have ignored the truth about their origins too, otherwise he wouldn't have wrote such enthusiastic critics. If Miss Catherineyronwode have a valid source to support his unusual statement I believe everyone here would be very interested to hear about it.

Ialkarn 22:55, 8 october 2007

Evola - sliced and diced

Is this really an NPOV lead concerning Evola?

"Julius Evola born Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola, aka Baron Giulio (May 19, 1898-June 11, 1974), was a controversial Italian esotericist and occult author, who wrote prolifically on matters political, philosophical, historical, racial, and religious from a Traditionalist point of view."

No mention of white supremacy, antisemitism, flirtations with fascism, ally of the Nazis, his role as a hero to post WWII neofascits and neonazis?

• Hilter: political leader, writer, painter, opera lover, liked dogs...

We can do better.--Cberlet 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the information you requested to the lead.--Lholder 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Much, much better, thank you. A more well-rounded lead. I tweaked some language and gave Evola his due as a leading intellectual voice in some esoteric circles. I will try to dig up some more cites and quotes. The whole article is much improved and more detailed.--Cberlet 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As i promised i would yesterday, i have gone through the entire Lholder /Cberlet version of the Evola page, pulling out buried leads, giving sex magic its own subhead, changing the mixed past and present tenses to a standard past tense (he's dead), and condensing the many redundancies that had resulted from the incorporation of previous versions. I have also taken the rather radical step of moving Lholder's interesting but too-lengthy description of Evola's Traditionalism to the Traditional School page, where it fits rather nicely. I also hope that the Radical traditionalism page gets merged into Traditional School page, as has been suggested, for it is now somewhat of an orphan. I won't be doing that latter task myself, though i will leave a vote for it on the relevant pages. Catherineyronwode 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I now think that this page (while it of course needs more work, what page doesn't) is a page I can get behind as an accurate representation of Evola's life and work. --Lholder 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well. my adenaline level is returning to normal and i am glad that you were amenable to compromise. I think the article was greatly improved by your additions, by Chip Berlet's uncompromising insistence on keeping major topics in the lead and not buried, and (i hope) by my copy-editing. I stand corrected, by the way on the mistake i made, saying Evola was a member of the Fascist Party; luckily that was just my poor memory of what i'd read on the page, and was never ON the page itself. I am grateful for everyone's cooperation. I hope to return now to my own interests -- occultism and folklore -- but this excursion into fascism has left me with a new pile of interesting pages on my watchlist. :-) Catherineyronwode 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Evola's works

Why is everyone single one of Evola's works an article right now? Most of the pages are simply translations of the titles into English. Suggest redirecting to Evola and expounding upon the major works. Isopropyl 01:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Evola and the "Protocols"

A small contribution to the debate on this subject: in the last pages of the 1972 edition of Il Mistero del Graal (Rome, Edizioni Mediterranee), Evola states that the issue of authenticity or falsity of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are an "open question" and that such "document" has the value of a "symptom". He also says that he saw a striking similarity between the conspiratory plan laid out in the "Protocols" and the events of contemporary history. I won't translate those entire pages here, but as a whole it seems clear that, at least by 1972, such "similarity" was the main or only point of interest of the "Protocols" for him, and not the identification of the Jews as the culprits of it. Unfortunately I don't have the English translation of the book at hand.

I'm not a specialist on Evola and have read only a few of his books, but I assume that his opinion on the "Protocols" and on the role of the Jews may have changed somewhat over time. Perhaps an overview of this development could be an intresting addition to the main page.

Magical idealism - need stub

Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Breathless fan

Some of this seems like the writing of a breathless fan. "Evola's uncomparable [sic] vast knowledge of ancient and modern texts…", "…he expounds according to the ancient texts…" (note the assumption that he has followed and understood them correctly, not "…he expounds that according to the ancient texts…"), "Evola reveals in the Golden Age…" ("reveals!"), etc. It's also not very well written.

I know next to nothing about the topic, so I'm not the one to edit this, but I would hope that those working on the article will have a look at this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As to bias, we should document Evola just like some strange, alien plant previously unknown to biology instead of taking a simplistic pro or anti perspective.

The article is indeed very badly written and chaotically organized. A few revisions ago however the page was half-decent, but apparently some non-English speaker thought he had the supreme right to mutilate the half-decent version and now the page is quite mediocre. Eventually, I will extensively rework the article *in accordance with proper English grammar and scholarly standards*.

Hi 172.150.22.191, go ahead and improve this article *in accordance with proper English grammar and scholarly standards* that's good! But for now you've not shown your full potential I guess because your last edit was more about erasing info about Evola. Please do not hesitate to explain why you're doing it. Style is important but without the proper content it isn't anything but beautiful empty talk.

Also I've read his book about 'The Metaphysics of Sex' and from what I remember Evola does explicitly compare homosexuality to sex at the "level of masturbating exchange in sexual exstasis". Too bad the quote gave no page reference, but I'll check when time permits. The article should not make Evola more apealing or hide some of his positions.

Let's indeed try and expose what he says as clearly as possible without pushing one way or the other. Keep us updated on your english efforts!

Corbin on the Aryan-Sufic Hyperborean Paradise, the Midnight Sun and the Grail

From Henry Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth (trans. Nancy Pearson, Princeton University Press, 1989, pps. 71-72).

"...That is why the progression, which this mode of thought makes it possible for us to conceive, is not a horizontal linear evolution, but an ascent from cycle to cycle, from one octave to a higher octave. A few pages from the same Shaikh, which have been translated here, illustrate this. The spiritual history of humanity since Adam is the cycle of prophecy following the cycle of cosmogony; but though the former follows in the train of the latter, it is in the nature of a reversion, a return and reascent to the pleroma. This has a gnostic flavor to be sure, but that is exactly what it means to 'see things in Hurqalya.' It means to see man and his world essentially in a vertical direction. The Orient-origin, which orients and magnetizes the return and reascent, is the celestial pole, the cosmic North, the 'emerald rock' at the summit of the cosmic mountain of Qaf, in the very place where the world of Hurqalya begins; so it is not a region situated East on the maps, not even those old maps that place the East at the top, in place of the North. The meaning of man and the meaning of his world are conferred upon them by this polar dimension, and not by a linear, horizontal and one-dimensional evolution, that famous 'sense of history' which nowadays has been taken for granted, even though the terms of reference on which it is based remain entirely hypothetical.

Moreover, the paradise of Yima in which are preserved the most beautiful of beings who will repopulate a transfigured world, namely, the Var that preserves the seed of the resurrection bodies, is situated in the North. The Earth of Light, the Terra Lucida of Manicheism, like that of Mazdeism [Zoroastrianism], is also situated in the direction of the cosmic North. In the same way, according to the mystic Abd al-Karim Jili, the 'earth of the souls' is a region in the far North, the only one not to have been affected by the consequences of the fall of Adam. It is the abode of the 'men of the Invisible,' ruled by the mysterious prophet Khizr (Khadir). A characteristic feature is that its light is that of the 'midnight sun,' since the evening prayer is unknown there, dawn rising before the sun has set. And here it might be useful to look at all the symbols that converge toward the paradise of the North, the souls' Earth of Light and castle of the Grail...."