From a scholarly point of view, the preface to 'Riding the Tiger' is
a worthy introduction to the work of Julius Evola. It's well-
documented, well-structured, very informative. Its descriptive part
is indeed trustworthy. After all, the author has been familiar with
the subject of his study for more than 35 years, during which he has
translated Evola's main works into German. It's its critical part
which is problematic, for a reason which, since you seem to have had
the good idea to browse the messages of this forum, you are aware of.
It is problematic to the extent that his criticisms of Evola's supra-
Fascist stands are made from an infra-Fascist point of view, that is,
to say, a democratic point of view, which, to Evola, is worthless ;
at best : a symptom of decay ; it is illegitimate and absurd to
assess qualitative values according to quantitative criteria. This is
coupled with an unfortunate tendency to make apologies for so-called
mistakes for which Evola never apologised, since he never considered
them as mistakes, to start with.
Along the same lines, but in a less pronounced manner, Martin Schwarz
claims the Italian writer said things that he didn't and had thoughts
he didn't have. Contrary to what is stated in
http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/jenseitseng.html/, Evola
never "judged his single-minded fixation on the "Jewish question" of
the 1930s governments as a mistake, traceable to those hidden powers
that were thus able to pursue their own activities in the background"
and cannot be said to have had a "fixation" about it., to start
with. Some people, who exaggerate Reghini's influence on Evola, may
think that the latter "had been forced into a narrow, anti-Catholic
direction under the influence of Freemasony", but Evola
never "thought himself" that it had been the case.
Schwarz doesn't beat about the bush. When he indulges in wishful
thinking, this gives rise to absurd interpretations, such as the one
according to which "Evola's review of Francis Parker Yockey's
Imperium" would be "a kind of blue-print for most of the movements
seeking to establish the Eurasian New Order" ; obviously, he's trying
to lend credibility to a movement which cannot but appear as highly
suspect to any truly conscious European, for reasons set out in some
of our previous messages on Eurasianism and National-Bolshevism.
Leaving this aside, the picture which is drawn of Evola's work in the
article and in the interview
(
http://www.rosenoire.org/interviews/schwarz.php/) is quite faithful,
and some remarks are quite relevant :
"Evola was not really interested in what is commonly
called "religion".
"Evola is not primarily interested in history as such. He is
concerned with the contact to the immutable, eternal centre of Being".
"More than others, he deserves to be called a "loner," a solitary
thinker in a derelict landscape: the philosopher in the Age of the
Wolf".
even though they would gain at being clarified.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "lordofthespear"
<hailtocryptogram@...> wrote:
>
> Is the preface written by H.T. Hansen really not that trustworthy?
I'm
> quite surprised to hear that, there's really much to learn for our
> non-Italian readers.
> What about Martin Schwarz? I haven't seen his name being mentioned
> here (perhaps for a similar reason, then?).
>
> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
> <evola_as_he_is@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > The authors who had an influence on him Evola mentioned in his
self-
> > biography. Obviously, the writer of this preface, against which
we have
> > already warned firmly, knows better than him who exactly
influenced his
> > thought.
> >
> > The only question here is: by whom is the thought of the writer
of this
> > preface influenced, consciously or not?
> >
> > Thompkins&Cariou
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "skyegamble89"
> > <skyegamble89@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > In Dr. H.T. Hansen's introduction to "Men Among the Ruins", he
> > > mentions Otto
> > > Braun as being a decisive influence upon Evola's thought. I'm
> > > ordering his
> > > (Braun's) diaries, but I haven't been able to find any
information
> > > about Braun
> > > himself. Does anybody have any information? Hansen's assertion
that
> > > Braun
> > > was one of three decisive influences upon Evola's thought
(along with
> > > Michelstaedter and Weininger) also seemed suspect to me- again,
any
> > > information would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Skye J. Gamble
> >
>