Needless to apologise. Your thoughts and feelings about Evola are not
uninteresting, insofar as they are overloaded with most of the ad
hominem attacks which lie about on the InterNet against the man.
'Evola and women' is a burning-hot subject for those who have trouble
in looking coldly at things, and who are unaware of the attitude
which was that of men towards women in traditional societies, and
especially in Aryan societies. Evola's attitude towards women is
closely akin to that of men towards women in traditional societies,
from ancient India to ancient Rome and ancient Scandinavia ; simply,
it is more radical and cannot but be more radical, considering the
increasingly gynaecocratic flavour of the Western society of today.
Sad to say, but many so-called current 'traditionalists' and 'neo-
pagans', mistaking Walter Scott's 'pink chivalry' for the real thing,
behave towards the shadows of women whom we are left with just as the
petty servile effeminate neurotic bourgeois of the XIXth century, a
shadow of man, did. Not to mention so-called 'Satanists', who, at
night, are allowed by their girl-friend or their wife to go on stage
to play acoustic guitar dressed in a Nazi uniform or to take part in
more or less initiatory rituals, only after they have done some
shopping or they have walked the dog. Not to mention, finally, the
scholar whose head of department is a woman and who, delighted and
flattered to give lectures in front of an audience composed mostly of
women, has the time of his life portraying the manly attitude of a
man towards women as a consequence of bitterness and repression.
Those are generally the human types who allow themselves to lecture
you on the 'right way to behave with women', and who, by their
infantile behaviour towards them, only contribute to make things
worse. Not only their behaviour is infantile, but it is also feminine.
In the meantime, we are still waiting for one of
those 'traditionalists', 'Satanists' or 'neo-pagans' to set to music
this Stotra from the 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad' (VI.4.7), that is one
of the main Upanishads : "If she does not grant him his desire, he
should buy her (with presents). If she still does not grant him his
desire he should beat her with a stick or his hand ...", as well as
other 'misogynist' parts of the Rig-Veda.
A member of this forum was surprised that Evola could give an
interview to the Italian edition of 'Playboy'. At least, the
interviewer spared him his feelings about his so-called disdain for
the weaker sex and his so-called 'misogyny', and didn't wonder why he
wasn't harsher on homosexuality. To start with, Evola is not harsh on
homosexuality. Why should he be harsh on it? His aim is to explain it
from a non moralist point of view.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "darkiexx" <tristanarpe@h...>
wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am writing of the cuff here, so please forgive me, but I can not
> help feeling Evola was a queer who vented his disdain for the
weaker
> sex; because he had lost the use of his legs.
>
> The Australian (?) Nigel Jackson wrote an article stating that he
> was a twisted old man before he died.
>
> This I hope not, because Evola has given me an injection in life
> that has helped me overcome my nihilism to a point.
>
> Was he a pederast? The reason I ask is that he is not very harsh on
> this disorder, especially in the metaphysics of sex.. One cannot be
> critical of woman as that other, and expect any love from men who
> sacrificed their hearts, souls and minds. Especially if one
believes
> in the dharma.
>
> Was he obsessed with black uniforms? Or was he like Jean Thiriart
> who made no apologises for the reality of the union of man + woman
> equals life.. Or is he as can be deduced an bitter and repressed
> queer fraud???
>
> Sorry for being blunt, but enough bullshit is enough!!!
>
> I am not a sycophant for nothing and especially no jumped up Papist
> Latino..
>