Calling-out Racist Occultists and Esotericists? This is What I think about Philosophers like Evola
In Reactions to Julius Evola on Buddhism, Jean Varenne had written in her introduction to his book The Doctrine of Awakening, that a man like Julius Evola was particularly suitable to dispel misconceptions of Buddhism and Siddhartha spread by Western perspectives of his teachings as docile, feminized, etc. In “Negrified America,” I gave Julius Evola’s view of Black people in the U,S, and the race situation here at the time, and I compared his outlook with Helena Blavatsky. The sentiment Evola expressed is no different from today’s perspectives I have heard all across the American and European Right. In circles of Esoteric Studies and Interest, from what I’ve seen, no one gets really hot and bothered by a philosopher who had strong racial attitudes, as we see in outrage culture.
We don’t try to erase works and hide information. All is open and revealed. . .but I do have an approach to this I shall explain.
What I will say here is not a Conservative kind of talking point. It’s more about people’s dogmatic attitudes on race. Julius Evola called himself racist, pridefully. I personally think the strategy of Liberals calling out people as “racists” is losing effect, and comes off as a very weak tactic. I once knew a college student who you would call a racist, and he was right-wing. Like Evola, he wholeheartedly believed and rationalized his views, e.g., like what Conservative influencers’ today argue, that ‘racism doesn’t exist today,’ ‘Blacks are the entitled,’ and ‘Blacks are the racists.’ Now, I had conversations with him. I never found it effective to call him out as a racist. Never. I knew, the moment I did, he would win and control the conversation. You just knew, that on certain people, this weak tactic does not work. You could not rebut Julius Evola with his aristocratic attitude in his day by merely calling him a “racist.” You couldn’t make him cry, or repent. The idea you could is laughable. Sure, he’s racist. But, I can only shrug my arms and roll my eyes about it. Evola is not more different from Jared Taylor. The term simply will not phase such persons. Evola was an exceptional mind, but he believed these things are a matter of fact. How much strength and dignity could you show before such a person? Or would you cry? Could you wittily refute Evola’s viewpoint about us, or would you stagger, like a child when he falls back on his toy, then you yell “racist!” Ah, Snap! You lose!
This is what it looks like to me, when those who control social media are rearranging it to hide information and guide us in the directions to things they want us to be occupied with, rather than internet rabbit holes of “dark intellectuals.” We might as well become China. CNN suggested people to now use the term “racialist,” or “ethno-nationalist,” to call someone racist without using the term. I never use the term “racialist” as a tactic to call someone racist. This makes no sense. I simply use the term as it was first understood to define a race science ideology. Ethno-nationalists call themselves “ethno-nationalists.” Many people like Julius Evola, and still today, hold the belief that Blacks are inherently low IQ, or just low in general. It informs some Americans view on policy and how we should govern — this is how those trying to revive “real Conservatism” think. Many known minds of history considered great thinkers adopted such views as a fact, that the dark-skinned (of all peoples and tribes) were not fully-human. It doesn’t get better when we cross over into colorism. These outdated and false beliefs carry over into these “great thinkers” spiritual notions. The sacred fire they will say, e.g., exists supposedly in all of matter, except (suspiciously except!) in this and those people — for African peoples, Jews, etc. And it’s nonsense, and merely mixes that period’s ‘race science’ with ancient philosophy where it was not there originally. Unfortunately, it is something unavoidable. Yes, it can be very disappointing, but I don’t cry about it, and I think it is weak to resort to such an old tactic.
And I don’t think any of us should either. I’d rather just create new work not held back by such blindsides. In the course of my life thus far, I have been in many both rude or calm-and-collected conversations on social media and in person with racists, Paleo-Cons, Fascists, conservative religious people, Black supremacists, and so forth. There is a similarity in thinking patterns. There is the ineffectiveness of this tactic to call out someone as racist who has fully-rationalized his or her beliefs through certain information or through their own psychology and sense of identity. You cannot make them feel guilt, or cry, and firstly, why be so disingenuous and play therapist? There are persons, who like sociopaths would not flinch or feel guilt at the thought of violence, think the same in regards to their extreme positions on race, tradition, policy and culture. This was clearly demonstrated for example in an interview between Charles Barkley and Richard Spencer in the TNT special, American Race: White Privilege in America, when the two interviewers were stunned by Richard Spencer. When they were stunned, Richard Spencer, a pure troll, felt legitimated and highly excited his listeners could know what so many others truly feel and think without the filters and protection of “political correctness.” In such a situation, you should never show surprise, as it shows naivety and defeat.