Thank you for publishing this today not less relevant text.
In connection with this subject matter, I wonder if Evola approved of
the student revolt of 1968, a claim I've seen being made without any
reference to a genuine source.
If this were true I can only imagine that he approved of it because in
Italy there was still an amount of right-wing students present.
P.S. Although I would not want to draw unnecessary much attention to
it, I would like to point out that the content of the first footnote
is missing and that where Collins is quoted in the text (the
particular quote being: "I thought murder was but an expression of
revolt against the modern world and its ambushes, because the more one
speaks of order and society, the higher goes the crime rate. I thought
his crimes were but an act of defiance…It was far from being the case:
he kills for the same reason that drives an alcohol to drink, because
he cannot do without it") the word `alcohol' in the last sentence
should most likely be replaced by the word alcoholic.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
>
> It really does not.
>
> To write an essay, an author may use "to some extent" a given
> material, but this obviously does not mean that he agrees, whether in
> full or in part, with the conclusions reached by those who have
> produced it.
>
> In 1958, a few decades before his conversion to neoconservatism, the
> young leftist intellectual N. Podhoretz argued in his essay 'The
> Know-Nothing Bohemians' that the 'Beat Generation' glamourised the
> primitive and the instinctual and hated the civilised and the rational
> ; therefore, to oppose or support the Beats, "has to do (...) with
> being for or against intelligence itself". Evola criticised the 'beat
> generation', but never for being "against intelligence itself", for
> the simple reason that Evola never overestimated 'intelligence', at
> least as conceived of by establishment intellectuals such as Reynolds,
> Gold and Podhoretz. These, on the basis of a bourgeois conservative
> standpoint, opposed two human types which are basically by-products of
> the same bourgeois society, that is to say, on one hand, the
> 'instinctual man' and, on the other hand, the 'rational man', and did
> not see any other alternative to these 'false twins'. Evola does.
>
> Evola's point of reference has always been the 'differentiated man'
> which is as far from the 'instinctual man' as he is from the 'rational
> man'.
>
> In 'Partisan review', Podhoretz chastised the beats for having claimed
> they wanted to "Kill the intellectuals who can talk coherently, kill
> the people who can sit still for five minutes at a time, kill those
> incomprehensible characters who are capable of getting seriously
> involved with a woman, a job, a cause". From the ideas expounded by
> Evola on the subject in 'Youth, Beats and Right-Wing Anarchists' and
> other writings of his on this topic, there is every reason to think
> that he would have gladly let both sides kill each other, with their
> favourite ammunitions : blanks.
>
> Interestingly enough, many current scholars have reached the
> conclusion that the beats' novels would never have become so
> successful, hadn't they been so narrow-mindedly criticised by American
> anti-beats. This is what may be called the catch-51 syndrome : "I am
> the AL and the WY". The 'differentiated man', as for him, does not
> precisely boost sales.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Rowan Berkeley
> <rowan.berkeley@> wrote:
> >
> > This essay offers an early example of cross fertilisation between
> the ideas of
> > Evola and those of the writers who were to become "the
> neoconservatives":
> >
> > "In what follows we will use to some extent the material consisting
> of the
> > testimonies and the essays collected in the anthology by S. Krim,
> The Beats -
> > the most important essays are those by H. Gold, Marc Reynold and N.
> Podhoretz"
> >
>