>>20450>I am talking about the authoritarian nationalist ideology with a mixed economy.So as in how the Italian Fascists were in actually. I suppose all those terms can be used to describe Evola’s brand of Fascism which he considered the most pure and divinely orientated.
Nationalism taken in the sense of all citizens of the Roman Empire are Roman and had less to do with Rosenbergian biological nationalism of the National Socialists.
Authoritarian as in a caste system where the higher differentiate themselves without dispute purely through their ‘aura of power’/ inherent power (my terms can’t remember exactly)
As for mixed economy Evola doesn’t really elucidate anything economy and sort of just dismisses it as a myth and of no concern of the ruling class, let the dirty merchants handle it sort of thing.
I suppose in many respects it is senseless to argue about his Fascism without a firm definition and it is fair to assume that its definition corresponds approximately to how to Italian Fascists acted.
I would argue that Evola was more Fascist than the Italian fascists because most of my knowledge about the ideology has come from Evola himself and I saw how his ideas were derived from intransient principles.
>Neither Nietzsche nor Evola wanted anything to do with the ideology or the common man because of their own perceived aristocratic supremacyThis is completely true but I’m unsure if you mean this with negative connotations. I’m unsure as for Nietzsche but for Evola this was justified along the lines of the common man as undifferentiated is unable to coherently recognise the sickness of modernity, therefore his opinion is rightfully discarded.
As far as ‘aristocratic supremacy ‘we have to clear the modern connotations.
First of all Evola understands an aristocrat in its original Hellenic sense as ‘the best’ of ‘excellent power’ with the title coming from the ruling class who lead the front line of a battle. As I’m sure you will see this is no longer the case.
Evola’s hierarchy is like that of Plato’s, for example when Plato justifies slavery when the master is of better virtue than the subordinate and that the subordinate benefits morally from this interaction and that slavery is no longer justified once the slave has gained the necessary will power to govern his own life better than the will of the master.
We have to understand that this superiority exists in very real sense based on the individual’s virtue, his aura.
It is the sort of hierarchy where the king wouldn’t need to dress extravagantly and exhibit his wealth to have his commands followed. This king could be naked, isolated from his entourage and still command respect because he embodies the principle of power in a very real and felt sense.
He would also suggest a hereditary relationship but that would be subordinated by the virtue of the individual since soul trumps biology (but there is a correspondence between better soul, better body since ‘as above, so below’ (failing to see this causes /pol/ tier misunderstandings of Evola))
> I don't like it when people mix the esoteric and the political. The former completely transcends the latter and they should not be discussed in tandem.I completely agree in the context of 99% of all political discussion. I find it unbearable when metaphysics is debased with comparison to what has become of politics.
But I would make an exception to that rule with the likes of Evola because it is clear that there is no intention for application on any level besides the differentiated individual. In an ideal world (not possible in this age) the politician and metaphysician would be the same person ( think Plato’s philosopher king) where the state would be run in accordance to the hermitic principle ‘as above, so below’.
Evola in places describes how this would work with really interesting consequences, for example:
He disagrees that the state should be run like the family because the state is at a higher level in the hierarchy than family and therefore the family should be run like the state.
This metaphysical argument sounds positively appalling out of context but if you take it in the context that his/transcendent ideal of state then you would see that this is so because in many respects the nuclear family holds more true to ideal and that all modern states are in an advanced state of decay.
One of the reasons I love reading Evola is because he breaks down political false dichotomies by simply transcending the debased plane they are presented on. It’s like I couldn’t of even imagined a perfect solution because I’m used to dealing within the framework of modernity, whereas reading Evola who might as well of been an ancient cuts through the same problem like butter.