Culture

Alt-Right Essentials: A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth – Julius Evola

Given the vast array of reading material out there that is in some way relevant or of interest to members of the AltRight (or those who find themselves with an attraction towards AltRight sentiments and ideas), I have decided to introduce the ALTRIGHT ESSENTIALS category thereof here on AltRight.com. Comprising literature that, in my very humble opinion, should be read by anybody who self-identifies as right-leaning, this grouping should hopefully provide any budding AltRighter with a comprehensive reading list thus enabling them to get better acquainted with the different strands, philosophical currents and ultimate goals of those whose energy is pushing the movement forward. I shall also allow myself to write slightly longer, more in-depth pieces when it comes to reviewing such books.

A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth, a compilation of works written by Julius Evola revolving around the subject of politico-spiritual (but not necessarily biological) youth, is the first entry into the ALTRIGHT ESSENTIALS line-up and certainly makes for an excellent start.

For those unfamiliar with Evola and his writings, a little background may be required. Baron Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (1898 – 1974) was arguably Italy’s chief anti-egalitarian, anti-liberal traditionalist philosopher prior to, during, and most notably after the Second World War. Effectively the human embodiment of the counter-Zeitgeist of post-War Italy, Evola expressed sincere support for many facets of the German National Socialist movement (to the point of working for the security services of the SS and having Heinrich Himmler amongst his personal acquaintances). Incidentally, he was far more critical of the Italian Fascists led by Mussolini describing the movement as being almost purely reactionary in nature and lacking an ideology and inner principles (prerequisites, Evola believed, for any traditionalist or idealist enterprise seeking to transcend the purely political and stave off retrogression back to an increasingly liberal post-War Europe). Evola saw Fascism proceeding largely from activism rather than any set of ideals.

So on to the book itself.

A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth is prefaced with a no-nonsense foreword by Gábor Vona who you can imagine, being one of the founding members of Jobbik, pulls absolutely no punches in describing the everyday right as ‘anti-Communist, anti-liberal, and pro-order’ all the while decrying the infiltration of the Right by left-wing ideals (a situation we have become all too familiar with). Vona states that this ‘infection’ is down to the Right’s use of left-wing tools to further its cause as its own are too weak. Hence, then, the need for the Right to form its own basis of ideology, in order to strengthen its own tools, and replace a rampant anti-leftism with a set of core values and principles it can call its own. It is precisely this attempt at ‘pure-Rightism’ that Evola discusses in A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth and that is epitomised in this compilation of his works.

Continuing the trend of thought set out in Vona’s foreword, Evola’s over-arching concept (aside from his definition of ‘Youth’, which is looked at below) is that of an uncompromising adherence to traditional, moral principles rather than any accommodation of the Left. Indeed, in understanding that, to a large degree, Democracy, Socialism, Radicalism and Communism all ‘feed each other’, Evola unapologetically asserts that the Right must set out strong and unambiguous principles as ‘there is no negotiating with subversion’ as ‘concessions made today mean condemning ourselves to being completely overwhelmed tomorrow’. Given the current political climate, one could make the case that Evola was bestowed the gift of foresight.

So how does this fit in with the AltRight? Well, aside from the principles outlined above which will clearly sit well with many, Evola touches on the need to sacrifice the cult of individualism for the greater good as we are set against each other if not. Simply put, it is commonly known that there are many different, perhaps mutually exclusive currents of thought running through the movement, yet certain irreconcilable differences are to be laid aside for the greater good (a lot of these disagreements are secondary and will be rendered void if we do not achieve the removal of cultural Marxism and other ills from the Western space first). However, the danger lies in such a unified movement being purely reactionary; that is to say purely based on an anti-Left rather than a pro-Right approach. What happens when the Left is defeated? Will the movement prove to be a house of cards and fall to pieces when infighting and dissent break out? To avoid this, Evola argues, a core ideology and set of principles needs to be clearly defined and agreed upon if it does not emerge organically, and this promises to be no easy task. Ultimately, Evola espouses his own take on such an ideology that proves to be unapologetically sure of itself and strives to answer the question ‘what becomes of the (real) Right when it no longer plays the role of opposition?’ Inescapably, it seems, his answer is to keep the Right and Left wholly separate – ‘Idea, order, elite, state, men of the Order – we should maintain the battle lines in these terms, for as long as possible’. One may ratiocinate that this is the essence of real Conservatism.

Additionally, it is worth addressing one of Evola’s main critiques of the post-war Right; namely, his deploration of the lack of historiographical writings that the Right could otherwise refer to (this is when compared to the Left who approach the perception of history from an anti-Traditionalist standpoint – ‘the Left has more clearly defined history as linear and progressive rather than cyclical and subject to subversion’ which is more how the AltRight would view it).

But let us stray away from how the AltRight can integrate Evola’s works to help further itself and analyse A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth in more detail. Often including a healthy dose of the abstract intertwined with the purely practical, the texts themselves will engage higher-level thinkers. One should see this as a positive given the ease with which the MSM has previously tarred nationalists, patriots and populists as being intellectually-challenged (or even ‘stunted’). The AltRight must have its Intelligentsia; one that can digest such works and adapt them to the current day. Alas, the Left has often won its victories through its subversive intellectuals and their paradigm-shifting thinking.

The message put forward by A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth is generally anti-Socialist as it depicts Socialism as being the big enabler of class warfare. Evola promulgates a higher ideal where everybody can be proud of their role in society precisely because they are made aware of how society needs them in order to function. They therefore are proud of their roles and perform their tasks to the best of their abilities for a greater cause. This is perhaps the only real case whereby Evola endorses a form Collectivism but ties it to a superior ideal rather than a purely political system whereby the ownership of land and the means of production are attributed to the people or the state. Consistently though, Evola proves himself to be opposed to absolute collectivism or individualism – in terms of the latter, Evola rejects the concept of ‘the person’ in an individualist sense (the atomistic, egalitarian and libertarian individual) instead understanding it as a dignity that must be earned and that has its place in a hierarchy). Thus, Evola rejects both extremes preferring free-thinkers whose moral values and ideas are sufficiently in harmony as to be conducive to establishing a society that unrelentingly aspires to better itself.

More generally, the compilation of Evola’s works covers a broad horizon of themes. The common thread shared by all, however, is that of Youth which Evola defines as being young not necessarily in age but in spirit; those who are still not yet so ground down by the concrete elements of day-to-day life that they have laid their morals and principles to one side and effectively thrown in the towel. Through Evola’s perceptions, ‘Youth’ becomes a mindset and will to action, yearning for the unconditional when pursuing an ideal (and here we return to the maintaining of the purity of the Right by refusing to dilute it with any leftist ideals).

Perhaps unwittingly (although, once again, one can not completely ignore his propensity for clairvoyance), Evola addresses several of our current cultural ailments. One such example is that of censorship & censure experienced by those who attempt to publish material (virtually or otherwise) or hold events that run(s) counter to the established leftist narrative. Examples of these abound. Evola’s answer? It was in exile and silence that Lenin formulated – systematically and lucidly – the doctrine destined to overthrow old Russia (it is my guess here that Evola may have been referring to The Development of Capitalism in Russia which expressed the idea that Capitalism had made socialist revolution possible in Russia and was finished by Lenin during his banishment to Shushenskoye), Hitler wrote Mein Kampf whilst incarcerated; it could well be, therefore, that this growing attack on the freedoms of expression by clamping down on potentially polemical writing and/or activism will one day prove to be counter-productive as the AltRight (for example) becomes the new counter-culture. These things, as we understand them, are cyclical and the wheel is gradually turning.

Passages in A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth also introduce us, to a lesser degree, to Evola’s thoughts on ‘the fallacy of tailor made creativity’ (one need only think of Hollywood, the music industry and the cultural Marxism that these institutions ever increasingly try to force-feed the masses), drug use and the dangers of gender differentiation gone haywire. You can see why Evola’s thoughts resound and are still relevant today. Interestingly, Evola broaches the topic of the SJW curse that besets the Western world describing it as a ‘revolt against ailing institutions of the system’ but with no higher ideal attempting to serve only the ‘lowest social strata to the detriment of others’. Whilst failing miserably, one might add.

Finally, the last intriguing demonstration of foresight I wish to touch upon in regard to the ideas articulated and expounded within A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth is the concept of the ‘revolution from above’ most clearly epitomised by the election of Donald Trump (although Evola states that this is done whilst disregarding ‘the below’ which was not the case with Trump’s election given he was put there by the people – one needs to bear in mind that Evola was a fervent supporter of monarchy and anti-democracy).

My one criticism of the writings in A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth (and not Evola himself where criticism is more common and varied) is that it is intimated here and there (and once explicitly stated) that Marxism had been purely relegated to political spheres rather than being present in the cultural during Evola’s later years. This may well have been the case during Evola’s life time (although I would disagree here) but, with some of the extraordinary foresight displayed in his writings, I was surprised at not feeling that at any point, in the compilation of works presented in A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth at least, was the threat of Marxism seeping into the cultural sphere addressed head on. This is a bit of a shame given that, had Evola addressed this, he may well have had some interesting thoughts and advice for us today. Nevermind, we don’t want to be spoon-fed our solutions anyhow.

So why is Julius Evola so easily dismissed by the mainstream? The answer lies in not only his ties to the failed nationalist regimes of the past (though he would of course be denounced for this today where the reigning climate is one of ostracising anybody who does not back equality and virtue signal all day long) but in some of his more controversial views. Here I would refer specifically to his alleged misogyny and belief that the true greatness of women lies solely in their subjugation to men. Whereas I believe we can applaud Evola’s acknowledgement of the largely evident biological and psychological differences between men and women (which pre-disposes them to different roles within society – especially the ‘well structured, organic, and hierarchical state governed by a principle of authority’ as envisioned by Evola), I personally struggle with some of his more extreme views such as the advocating of rape to ensure that men are not held hostage by their sexual desires which are, he believes, exploited by women. Too often have we heard of the caricature which depicts the lonely virgin basement-dweller surfing the internet whilst fantasising about such things. That Evola has penned a text (not included within the compilation being reviewed) in which he states that ‘Woman cannot be superior except as woman, but from the moment in which she desires to emulate man she is nothing but a monkey’ is perfectly acceptable given that the opposite would equally hold true. But I don’t believe I need to go into detail about why his more violently salacious ideas should be left well alone by any real adherent of the AltRight.

Fortunately, A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth looks more at Evola’s works and takes on a particular line of thought rather than analysing the man himself and the entirety of his ideas. Nobody is free from well-constructed criticism, nor should they be. As intelligent individuals, our challenge when reading the entirety of Evola’s oeuvre is taking the good and leaving the detrimental behind. This is where A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth serves a beneficial function in grouping together works by Julius Evola that are, by and large, able to support the forming of a doctrine for the AltRight whilst being free from anything that could jeopardise future success.

It has come to my attention that more recently, attacks have been launched on Evola as many of his ideas have been adopted by the AltRight. This has only increased upon the discovery that Steve Bannon is seemingly well acquainted with Evola’s works.

The main attack that I have seen launched on Evola by the mainstream press involves his anti-Semitism and supposed hatred of Christianity. In A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth, Evola’s only real mention of The Church comes when stating his goals; Evola underlines the idea that civilisation has to strive for a higher ideal and that this was originally dictated by the Church but is now something we have to define ourselves given the diminishing power and influence of the former. He also argues against the concept of egalitarianism, often supported by The Church, ‘as it keeps us all anchored to the lowest level rather than raising anybody to a higher position’ (here, as elsewhere, we can detect the influence of Nietzsche on Evola’s work). Other than that, anti-Semitism and anti-Church rhetoric make no memorable appearances in A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth, if any. This is probably a good thing given that entire books and papers could be (and are) dedicated to Evola the man and his opinions vis-á-vis institutionalised religion.

In conclusion, A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth clearly outlines Evola’s preference for the aristocratic over the democratic, but its principle benefit to us lies in its description of why the Right, up until this point, has failed to resurge (the MSI in Italy following World War II is often used as a case study by Evola to demonstrate the ongoing battle between Right and left). Evola goes on to describe the answer as lying within the ‘integral hierarchical idea’ and offers insights as to how this can be established. Whether you read the book and finish it agreeing with the essence of Evola’s thoughts on the aforementioned topics contained therein, or opposing the majority of them, I would wager that many of those who consider themselves to be part of the AltRight will find common ground with Evola (whether it be very little or a lot). Where the book shines is in its clearly defined portrayal of Evola’s principles and the manner in which these should be integrated by any movement that considers itself as part of the real Right. Food for thought at the very least.

A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth has been made available by our friends at Arktos and is also available on Amazon.

  • Evolver1

    Should have left “youth” off the title and just called in Handbook for Right Wing or Handbook for Alt-Right.

    Putting the word “youth” in the title limits its appeal and is condescending in the same manner as Young Americans for Freedom. And, it is similar in effect to those on our side who insist on dividing Whites by gender.

    • Martel Mosley

      I believe this comes from two sources, one mentioned in the review (that of referring to youth of spirit rather than purely of age) and the other emanating from the translation from Italian into English where ‘youth’ can certainly be applied more figuratively than in English without further contextualisation or explication.

      However, if your argument is that it should have been left out of the translation, or even the original works completely, then this would render a lot of Evola’s writings almost meaningless given that he refers repeatedly to a spirit of Youth that propels the Traditionalist Right forward.

      It is a conceptual, metaphysical term to be understood as such.

      • Evolver1

        Hmmm. Well, I’m not the translator or the publisher and they have made their choices in this regard. However, had I been the translator or the publisher I would have changed the apparently idiomatic term “youth,” to something else to give the book a wider possible audience that would understand the meaning of what Evola had in mind.

        And, in translating from one language to another it is often important to get to the meaning of idioms instead of translating them literally. For example, if someone had written: “That’s like taking coal to Newcastle,” and this was translated exactly for, say, Eskimos, they probably wouldn’t understand what was meant. So, if this were translated for Eskimos, one might change the idiom to: “That’s like taking ice to Alaska.”

        Words do not exist by themselves. They are properly used to convey meanings. It is the meanings that are important.

        • Martel Mosley

          That’s fair enough. Admittedly, upon initially setting eyes on the cover, I did assume the term referred solely to age.

          Good thing we have reviews to explain before one purchases!

      • Major Edmund Hewlett

        The book was named by the Hungarian editors, and as a member of that group wrote: “The essays in the book reveal terms of the intellectual quality of “being young”, which overlap the terms of the intellectual quality of “being right-wing”; that who is “young” -of course without reference to age- take possession of these, could set out a rising way; that he can form an order out of the chaos in the line of politics as well.” (Péter Milán: Julius Evola – Jobboldali fiatalok kézikönyve- in: Magyar Hüperión)

        • Martel Mosley

          Precisely. Well done on capturing the description (I didn’t have the book to hand when composing my reply).

    • katebushfan66

      Youth should be targetted.. that’s how lefties do it.

      • Evolver1

        Hmmm. Well, the well known Rules for Radicals was not called Rules for Radical Youth, and for good reason. Putting “youth” in the title sounds condescending and it may cause those who aren’t youth to not buy the book. And The Communist Manifesto wasn’t called The Communist Manifesto for Youth.

        Nevertheless, I’m not here to quibble and my comments are simply meant as well-intentioned suggestions that might increase book sales if it goes into a second edition.

  • Clark Kent

    Nice write-up.
    My only quip is that Evola also criticized the national socialists for basing too much of their ideology on anti-semitism. He was wise to the JQ, but worried that without it the NS philosophy would begin to run hollow, and was more reactionary than independently moving, similar as you described to his impression of Italian fascism.

    • Martel Mosley

      Thanks Clark. Will always appreciate anybody who takes the time to what is, admittedly, a rather long review (inevitably so if you wish to do the book some justice).

      Yes, I would definitely agree with you. In terms of the book (and only the book), that particular line of criticism seems to fall almost solely on Fascism yet Evola appraised everything with a critical eye and it wouldn’t surprise me if he found similar faults in National Socialism (especially that embodied by the NSDAP.

    • Martel Mosley

      What I will quickly add is that Evola’s general criticism of (populist) movements on the Right is that they focus(ed) too much on what they wanted to remove or eradicate, rather than what they would build whilst once in the position to do so. As such, one could argue that there is an indirect criticism (although admittedly not one solely reserved for the NSDAP’s brand of National Socialism).

      • what’s the point at talking about what one would build if what has to be eradicated stands of the way of that building ( psst – international Jewry – the global tyanny)? Till then, what you would do=moving deck chairs on a sinking ship and ignoring the leak

        • Martel Mosley

          I’m worried you may have misunderstood so I’ll be as succinct as possible.

          1. A movement purely predicated on removing or eradicating will fall to bits once that aim is achieved if it has no other objectives of a constructive nature. There’s a good clip of the movie Conspiracy which outlines this danger (less than two minutes, give it a watch):

          2. Absolutely nobody here is saying that the JQ is to be simply ignored. The idea here is what sort of movement do we want to build from within? What will stand the test of time once the obstacles have been removed? If the only goal of the AltRight is solving the JQ, it will have no underlying ideology or founding principles to turn to when it comes to having a strong spiritual culture during the fight or building the World we need after it.

          3. Thus, deal with the opposition in whatever form it takes fine, no problem. But make sure that we are more than simple barbarians when the time is at hand to sculpt a strong and decent civilisation. I, for one, refuse to let go of my principles simply because I am battling an opposition with none.

          4. Though the book does not address the JQ, it details values and moral guidance that could be adopted to ensure that we can be the best we can not only when facing down our enemies, but once they have been vanquished also.

          5. To denigrate a piece of work or person’s opinion simply because they don’t constantly mention the JQ is ridiculous. There is a plethora of books, articles and videos out there that do. If you’re going to ignore the many valid points raised in ‘The Handbook’ simply because you can’t see your favourite word in there, then nobody can help you.

          • the fact is yes, we need good moral character, true, but whining and complaining about Muslims who Jews have invited into your neighborhood is no way to deal with the Jew letting them in. So what does Jorjani say? He ignores the Jewish question and claim it is inevitable that we will have some sort of war with Muslims. UNless I missed something, that is clearly the view of the alt-right. Accept Jews as a reality that we can’t do anything about and then ask them to forgive the white race for being privileged or whatever. The only place the JQ is dealt with is in the comment section which is basically why I don’t come to this site anymore. It’s clear your movement is herding folks back into the fold. I didn’t read your essay on Evolva but was simply responding to ideas of noble visions in lieu of dealing with the JQ. If you deal with the JQ, you will get your noble vision, believe. How it manifests, is anyones guess now. It’s not simply a matter of jockying for masonic positions in the masonic political apparatus which requires you to ignore the JQ to enter

          • Martel Mosley

            I’ll address this bit by bit as best I can.

            ‘So what does Jorjani say? He ignores the Jewish question and claim it is
            inevitable that we will have some sort of war with Muslims’

            – I can not speak for Jorjani. I’m not even that familiar with his work. I have a lot more reading to be done for sure so that I can discuss other figures in depth.

            ‘UNless I missed something, that is clearly the view of the alt-right.
            Accept Jews as a reality that we can’t do anything about and then ask
            them to forgive the white race for being privileged or whatever.’

            – I disagree here. I believe the AltRight is well aware of the JQ and seeks to address it. The issue, as I see it, is two-fold. 1. If we keep harping on about nothing other than the JQ, we will become obsessed and this will be apparent to the outside world. If you want to convince ‘normies’ to join, or even that you’re right, it has to be done gently and over time. Not just by dumping the whole of ZOG, the mass-media control, The Protocols of The Elders Of Zion, etc, on their plate all in one go. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the reason many on the AltRight refer to ‘the elite’ or ‘the establishment’ as their enemy is because it is more acceptable terminology and means that all of those who do the West harm have to go. This naturally includes any Jews influencing or subverting our civilisation.

            ‘The only place the JQ is dealt with is in the comment section which is basically why I don’t come to this site anymore.’

            – Where do you go? This site is growing monthly and forms a bedrock for real AltRighters. If it focused solely on the JQ, as you seem to wish it would, there would be nothing else to offer. Quite self-defeating given that there are plenty of other sites that do this; a movement should be more than just hatred for a certain group.

            ‘It’s clear your movement is herding folks back into the fold.’

            – Which folks are you referring to here? I certainly wouldn’t include Jews or non-Whites as I certainly haven’t seen any about.

            ‘I didn’t read your essay on Evolva’.

            – Haha oh thanks. Time well spent by myself in writing it eh…

            ‘in lieu of dealing with the JQ.’

            – This is where you and I seem to fundamentally disagree. I do not, for a second, believe it is ‘in lieu’. The JQ is addressed elsewhere on this site (multiple times). The JQ and other subjects are not mutually exclusive; dealing with one does not automatically mean we can’t write about another. At the risk of repeating myself too many times, obsessing over the JQ (in the form of doing nothing but writing about it) would only harms us.

            ‘If you deal with the JQ, you will get your noble vision, believe.’

            – Unfortunately, what you’re putting forward here is the idea that were we to remove all the Jews, we could simply sit back and everything would fix itself. Again, I disagree. Society would be still be in its wretched, materialistic, instant-gratification, low moral value state and we would have to work to pull it out. How would we do that? Well, Evola offers a few interesting ideas I try to elucidate in my review you didn’t read.

            Jsigur, I can see where you’re coming from in the sense that perhaps there has been a slight leaning away from the JQ in recent days but I don’t believe it’s because it’s refuted by anybody here. Simply, we all know it exists, we all know it needs dealing with, so why hammer on about it? No, the odd article and discussion (such as this one) serve to keep that particular flame alive.

            What I will say is this, I intend on reviewing The Culture of Critique. I will have to do it from an objective point of view but I will do it. If there are any other books that, in your opinion, analyse the JQ properly (and even offer viable solutions) then by all means, let me know what they are.

            I hope my response has clarified things without being too lengthy.

          • Marquis the Renegade

            “In fact, I would go as far as to say that the reason many on the AltRight refer to ‘the elite’ or ‘the establishment’ as their enemy is because it is more acceptable terminology and means that all of those who do the West harm have to go. ”

            Same reason why the alt-right don’t call themselves absolutist or traditionalist eventhough they clearly have leanings towards these view points, principles or stance towards social issues the movement is pioneering towards. Calling everything bad (((planned/controlled))) by a particular tribe is the same kind of language normies don’t gravitate towards or understand.

    • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

      My only quip is that Evola also criticized the national socialists for basing too much of their ideology on anti-semitism.

      That is a quibble, not a quip.

      • Clark Kent

        !!!

      • Martel Mosley

        A quibble over a quibble perhaps?

        • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

          “A quibble over a quibble perhaps?” quipped Martel Mosley.

          • Martel Mosley

            Aha! A quip over a quibble of a quibble. How quaint!

  • invincible white owl

    I LOVE this notion of an “Alt-Right Essentials” designation for pertinent books/etc!!
    Will defo be seeking out this book:
    thanks for this excellent article re it!

    • Martel Mosley

      Thanks IWO! I throughly recommend it and glad the review helped.

  • Ludwig Adolf von Lützow

    Thanks for the interesting review , I really look forward to the following parts of Altright Essentials.
    There is one small mistake though : The Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels on behalf of the Communist League – and not by Lenin.

    • Martel Mosley

      You are quite right. This mistake is actually in the book hence why it is in Italics ( and why I have kept it here). I believe Evola was referring to ‘The Development of Capitalism in Russia’, finished by Lenin whilst he was in exile (in this work, he stated that such capitalism had made socialist revolution possible).

      On deeper reflection, I probably should clarify this in the above so will amend accordingly.

      Thanks and glad you enjoyed the review.

      • Ludwig Adolf von Lützow

        Thank you for clarifying.
        So Lenin is basically applying historical materialism to the circumstances of his time? If that’s the case, I’d reckon that ‘What is to be done’ ( or maybe ‘State and Revolution’ , even though it wasn’t written before 1917 ) could more rightfully be called Lenin’s “doctrine to overthrow old Russin”.
        Maybe Evola just wanted the banishment thing to fit ( I seem to recall that Lenin was also exiled while writing ‘What is to be done’ , though ).
        Anyway , keep up the great work!

        • Martel Mosley

          Ludwig, it would make sense but, officially, the dates do not work unless Lenin was drafting the latter before 1901. (Lenin having left exile in 1900 and ‘What Is To Be Done’ being written in 1901).

          I agree that Evola could well have given things a little nudge to make them fit however, I wouldn’t take it upon myself to assume so, hence the guess. He may just be referring to lines of thought, rather than a physical body of works, that may (or, indeed, may not) have been experiencing their own Genesis during that period (the ‘doctrine’ therefore perhaps referring to an intangible, nebulous system of thought at the time).

          Thanks for the encouragement. Much appreciated.

          • Ludwig Adolf von Lützow

            Ah yes , I see. Interesting.

  • bb

    My pick for guidebook of the Right: Plato’s Republic. Everything since has been a footnote. Every idea from Nietzsche, Evola, Carl Schmitt, etc. was right there in The Republic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Early_influences_.28495_BC_.E2.80.93_1880_AD.29

  • Marcus

    To get the ebook, Arktos redirects me to Amazon’s US site, which redirects me to Amazon’s UK site, which informs me that the ebook is not available in my jurisdiction (Ireland). Does anyone know where I can download it?

    • Martel Mosley

      I’ve messaged the relevant contact and I hope you will get your answer soon.

    • Martel Mosley

      I hope this works for you Marcus:

      http://www.easons.com/p-4897787-a-handbook-for-rightwing-youth.aspx

      Let me know.

      • Marcus

        I was not expecting Eason’s to carry it (but I should have checked). Thanks for your help.

        • Martel Mosley

          Anytime.

  • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

    The strength of the alt right has been its ability to allow its adherents and sympathizers to retain their attachment to a wide array of modern-day political values while at the same time, on questions of racial and cultural identity and racial and sexual realism, to hit their opponents where it hurts. It would be extremely regrettable if the alt right became dominated by Evolans (or other ‘traditionalists’) and their peculiar obsessions. (This book would have more aptly been titled “A Handbook for Rightwing Larpers.”)

    • Weiß Konig

      In Mien kampf Hitler stated that discussion and open debate usually leads to fractures and people losing sight of a clear cause. He deliberately minimized debate and, itseemed to work for him.

      (To see the opposite tactic look at the libertarians, all they do is argue and have accomplished nothing)

      Im not saying that discussion now, while people are still figuring out what they want, is a bad thing. But when we actually need to organize, getting more authoritative and sticking to a platform will be nessesary.

      • Martel Mosley

        Both points are valid. I argue more for the presence of critical thinkers in the AltRight who are able to take in and process a substantial variety of works, take from them what they deem to be beneficial and leave the rest behind. Not mindless individuals who blindly swallow this or that doctrine.

        Does Evola have valid ideas and points to offer that are worthy of consideration? Yes.

        Should the AltRight and those who comprise it base all of their moral choices (for example) purely on what Evola has written? No.

        • Weiß Konig

          True, with this essentials list be a continuing series?

          • Martel Mosley

            Yes. Got a lot of books to get through. Am aiming for one a month but not all will be part of the essentials list.

      • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

        Electorally, the NS approach was to complain about anything and everything in the “Weimar system” in the hopes of heightening people’s dissatisfaction. They were, however, very vague about what themselves actually wanted. I’ve heard that Goebbels answered in response this question of “Well what does your party want, then?”: “Not this.”

        With respect to this then, the attempt to elevate Evola to some kind of alt right guiding light would be like insisting that Alfred Rosenberg’s abstruse theories (which hardly anyone in the party ever read) formed the necessary core of NS doctrine.

        • Martel Mosley

          I understand what you’re saying, I truly do.

          I would only counter by saying that I know of nobody trying to elevate Evola to that status (other than leftists perhaps who want to do it as a means of attacking the AltRight for ‘following a rapist’).

          Furthermore, Evola does have interesting points and stances that are worthy of consideration. I know I risk repeating myself but the conclusion I try to purvey is one where these are taken into account and then kept or dropped depending on their merit e.g. for me, Evola’s idea of getting the young to engage in traditional, physical activities that are tied to a rightist ideology is certainly worthy of deliberation (especially if we’re thinking along the lines of national service).

  • Weiß Konig

    In which of his works did he support rape? I’ve read, Ride the tiger, Men amoung the ruins, Fascism viewed from the right, and I am halfway through Eros and the mysteries of love, but haven’t come across any mention of this.

    • Martel Mosley

      In Eros and the Mysteries of Love: “there
      is no difference” between “the desire to possess the physically intact
      woman, or the woman who resists” and “the root of a specific element of
      sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in
      almost every coitus.”

      Now I will say that this is not necessarily explicitly advocating for rape. The problem is, it is incredibly open to interpretation and can nobody can successfully argue that it has nothing to do with it either. My point is that the book being reviewed does not include such statements and this is not a bad thing.

      • Weiß Konig

        Ok. Thanks. I can sort of see how that could be read that way, but only out of context in the rest of the chapter.

        • Martel Mosley

          Agreed, context is key. But how easy is it for those to pick and choose solely in order to beat us back?

          Case in point: https://qz.com/909323/bannons-interest-for-julius-evola-unveils-the-sexism-at-the-core-of-trump/

          • Weiß Konig

            Fair point, but in general even if we were perfect, leftists would simply make things up.

            Its also possible to overestimate how damaging saying the wrong thing is. “Grab them by the pussy” didnt kill Trump.

            A few vauge sentences from an Italian philosopher wont keep me from discussing him with people.

          • Martel Mosley

            Nor should they!

  • Joseph Curwen

    I’m going to quote myself, this is a comment I did in Righ On about Evola and Traditionalism:

    “I’m going to offer a very, very condensed explanation why Traditionalism in the line of Evola and Guenon is wrong:

    1. If history have cycles, and we are in the kaliyuga, and this cycles are not caused by ‘terrrenal forces”; then there is nothing we can do to reverse/return to a golden age. In this order of ideas, any kind of resistance to the dissolution and subversion is completely useless and futile. So, we only have to wait for our honorable death as men among to ruins while the world is burning around us……
    This is absurd, wrong and dangerous. This is basically a paralyzing myth. The forces of dissolution can be fight and we can win. The III Reich is the perfect example that if we fight we can win.

    2. The biological race does not matter. Humans are tri partite beings with body, mind and spirit; and what its important is the last one, because its the direct link with the absolute. A thai buddhist monk is more closer to the absolute than a bourgeois aryan.
    Race, like I said in another comment here, is the base. If you are going to build a beautiful sculpture you need marble. Marble is the only type of stone who could give you beauty and could last in time. You can’t build a beautiful and perennial statue with clay.

    3. Related with 1), if the kaliyuga is not caused by ‘terrenal’ forces, then the role of judaism is an effect, not the cause of the subversion of degeneration. So we are wrong blaming them….
    If you really think that judaism is not the cause but an effect of the process of subversion and decadence we face today, you really, really need to open your eyes.”

    • Martel Mosley

      Here’s the issue Joseph, the review of the book is just that; a review of the book.

      Nowhere within ‘The Handbook’ lies any of the points you enumerate above with partial exception to number one; Evola does explicitly state that history is cyclical however, at no point does he then openly state or subtly insinuate that a return to a Golden Age is impossible. One can perhaps glean from his description that a Golden Age is attainable (given the nature of the cycle) but it will not, and should not be identical to any before it (but one really has to go out of one’s way to make this interpretation).

      As for point 2, the topic of race is not addressed at all in the book (though there is a definite focus on spirit). One could argue, like you have, that Evola miss-prioritises the importance of race (I assume that you have taken your evidence from some of his other works – I would be interested to know which actually). On the other hand, if one were to have only read this book in relation to Evola’s works, one could surmise that Evola makes no explicit reference to race as he considers its importance as axiomatic.

      Similarly, there is no reference to the JQ in this book (though there is plenty of discussion around what many believe to be the sympotms of it). Again, without reading his entire oeuvre, one could assume that he addresses this elsewhere.

      My point is not that you are wrong (on the contrary, I’m sure your arguments are very pertinent), merely that you are addressing Evola and his entire body of works as a whole, whereas this is only a review of one book and can in no way be seen as an analysis of all that constitutes ‘Evola’.

      However, maybe the comments section here is a good place to have that conversation though I would probably have to bow out not having read even the majority of what Evola produced.

      • Joseph Curwen

        Like you said, I’m addressing the Traditionalist School as a whole, including both Evola and Guenon, even when the former is the ‘master’ of the first one. Also I understand your point in this being only a review of a book (or better yet, a collection of essays). However, my point is that in the big picture Traditionalism is just a dead end, in the sense that it does not fight for secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

        Traditionalists are just armchair intellectual ‘aristocrats’ who think that sitting in a carpeted library, reading Evola and thinking about the greatness of the Solar Civilizations while the world is burning around because “we are in the Kali Yuga so there is nothing we can do to reverse it” is somehow the right thing to do. And that’s because the point 1), the cyclic conception of history. Of course Evola don’t say that explicitly but that’s the conclusion any normal person can deduce form the cyclic doctrine.

        Evola talked extensively about race in a book called Sintesi di Dottrina della Raza, where he explains his famous conceptions about the tripartite race: body, mind and soul. The book has many logical contradictions, and the most flagrant is the one I mentioned: that biological race is important but not important. Yes, that’s one of the ideas in the book, no kidding.

        About the JQ, Evola wrote also extensively, falling in the same logical contradiction by affirming and denying his role in the subversion of modern times. Like in the point 3), he says that yes the Jews are behind this and that and everywhere, but they are not to blame because there is something larger than them behind.

        I have not read ALL Evola and Guenon, but I have read my fair share from them and from other Traditionalists and my conclusions are the same: it is an intellectual farrago and a paralyzing myth.

        My point with this is not create infighting (we already have a lot of that thanks to the religious nuts), but to make people think: we are in desperate times and we need action in the real world. We need fighters and not armchair intellectual aristocrats. The enemy every single day is making progress and we are just tapping in a keyboard, jerking off to Heidegger books and Batman movies and making stupid memes.

        • Martel Mosley

          Yes, I see your point regarding Traditionalism clearly and agree with much of it. I would hasten to add that there are elements of Traditionalism (in this particular case, the way Evola presented it) that could well be worth integrating into the AltRight, or would at least be worthy of consideration. However yes, it is more a metaphysical relic of the past and does not practically answer the question of securing the existence outlined by the 14 words.

          Thank you for citing Sintesi di Dottrina della Raza. I have not read this and may well do so in the future to write more extensively on the point you’ve outlined. ‘The Handbook’ does not cover this subject at all. I genuinely believe that the essays in ‘The Handbook’ have been hand-picked for what they could add to a present-day movement like the AltRight hence the lack of any reference towards sexual practice or race as it is becoming clearer to me that Evola’s ideas would not have been compatible with those the AltRight represents today.

          Certainly, the time for action is now. One of the pros of the book is that it hammers home the point that one must have this ‘youth’ of spirit, i.e. a will to act decisively, to achieve any end results. This message is an integral part of the book hence why this particular compilation is, I believe, certainly worth one’s time.

          Like you say though, I would probably be hard-pressed to pronounce the same verdict about Evola the man, along with the entirety of his oeuvre. In terms of what Evola brings to the AltRight, ‘A HandBook For Right-Wing Youth’ is effectively his greatest hits…

          One of the reasons I write these reviews is to engage in the sort of discussion we’ve had to broaden my knowledge so I thank you sincerely.

          • Joseph Curwen

            You welcome.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    Every professor or journalist is an institutional man. Institutions are necessary, and without them, we don’t have organization and structure. BUT, all institutions are inherently about conforming to norms and standards. Now, that is a good thing insofar as every discipline has its rules and principles. After all, a chemist has to know real chemistry, and his work has to be approved by his peers. If every alchemist posed as chemist, chemistry would soon turn to crap.

    So, institutions must have standards. But when do standards turn to dogma and ideological pressure? Whether scholars are right or left, they should ideally live up to academic standards of research and discourse. In some fields, it’s easier to uphold proper standards. It’s harder to fake studies in math and hard science. But history and social sciences are open to interpretation, bias, ideology, passion, and personalities. So, as Jonathan Haidt discovered, most of the social sciences and humanities are rigged systems. They don’t so much uphold high standards of academics as enforce or nudge-nudge the peer-pressure of dogma. Indeed, some academics have admitted that they favor their own ideological kind. So, they prefer a second-rate ‘leftist’ to a first-rate ‘rightist’ even though, by objective academic standards, the latter is more deserving.

    Institutions are exclusive and open to just a few. Every academic department hires just a handful of people for coveted slots. So, everyone knows he has to play ‘politics’ and say the ‘right thing’ to get accepted. Also, even though professors, esp those with tenure, are supposed to be free in their academic pursuit, they know if they say or do the ‘wrong thing’, they will be disfavored, demoted, or not promoted any higher. Or, SJW’s trained by PC professors might come barking at them and even physically assault them.

    This is the curse of all institutions, secular or religious. This is why nearly all great religions arose from outside the institution: Jesus and Muhammad.

    For most of history, academic institutions enforced strict dogma or canon of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. This is one reason why so many false theories of Aristotle were accepted for so long. This is why China was stuck on Confucionics.

    But the modern German university changed the academic culture and allowed much greater leeway and freedom for thinkers. But that model came under attack time and time again from the far right, the far left, the tribalists(Jews here, Hindus in India and even UK and Canada), and religious forces(in nations like Iran and now Turkey).

    When institutions become excessively ‘institutionalized’ — a tendency that exists in all institutions — , it is a fortress of dogma, the island of Nurse Ratched. And PC has really done damage to lots of Western academia and media(which are worse because nearly all of media are owned by 6 conglomerates that hire and fire based on PC dogma or tribal/globalist interests).

    But thankfully, there is the internet. Now, in terms of erudition and access to sources/material, internet people like Stefan Molyneux and other such ‘thinkers’ fall short of full time academics and best of journalists. But here is one difference. Whereas those in the institution — even the very best, most honest, and most capable — must always look over their shoulders and pee their pants left they be denounced by peers, hunted down by SJW’s, or fired & blacklisted, no such fear exists among internet ‘thinkers’ who can notice and say whatever they want since they got nothing to lose. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” If institutions allowed total freedom to academics, were open to anyone with qualifications, and protected real free speech, the internet personalities on youtube couldn’t compete with professors or media people. But the fact is you must play the PC game to be part of media and academia. So, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable you are, there are tons of things you can’t say and there are lots of topics you can’t broach. When institutions grow Byzantine, it is the rag-taggers with guerrilla freedom who have a sudden advantage. This wouldn’t be the case without the internet, but it’s here. Some youtube ‘thinkers’ reach many more young people than professors or media people can hope to. And many people find them refreshing because their views are unfettered by PC dogma.

    Leftists once spoke of ‘long march through the institutions’, but this metaphor is faulty. Mao’s long march was not into the center of power to away from it. During the march, Mao and his men trekked some 6,000 miles to the hinterlands. And it was from the periphery that Mao devised plans to take power by appealing to the masses.

    In contrast, the Western leftists lost connection with the people and burrowed into institutions where they became the new monastic clergy. They claim to talk about the Real World, but 50% of what they have to say is ‘gender politics’ about trannies that has nothing to do with nothing.

    If anything is long-march-like, it is the politics via the internet. Because internet is not institutionalized, it is a place of free movement of ideas. While some of these ideas are crackpot and crazy, there are also expressions of obvious truths that the media and academia simply won’t over. It’s like Colin Flaherty has the guts to talk about the racial character of US violence where institutions of media and academia haven’t the guts to be honest.

    So, it’s turning into Long March through the Internet vs Fortress siege-mentality of the Institutions.

    • Martel Mosley

      Interesting and valid summation which I’m not sure you’ll find many people disagreeing with. My view of a real university is one where critical thinking is encouraged. This would mean no recommended reading lists (beyond the basics) and a heavy punishment for any lecturer or professor found to be pursuing a political bias.

      As for the new alternative media to be found on the internet, as you hint at, it was only a matter of time before non-MSM personalities started to siphon off those viewers, readers and listeners sick to the back teeth of having the World presented to them through PC-infested channels.

      Personally, I think things are moving in the right direction albeit slowly (such as the long march you describe). My worry is that the young of today have shorter and shorter attention spans. So much so that the establishment and the elite will find ways to short-circuit the learning process and make it easier and more appealing to digest small amounts of PC Leftist garbage than for the young to purposefully go out onto the internet and attempt to process large swathes of, for example, AltRight information. Then again, perhaps we only want those who are passionate and intelligent enough to be able to perform such tasks to be supporting the Right. The problem there though is that it would be better to have the masses behind a movement, as well as those who are very capable cognitively.

  • Marc Bjorneby

    “The main attack that I have seen launched on Evola by the mainstream press involves his anti-semitism…” Are you messing with us?

    He obviously isn’t anti-semitic if his Handbook is being marketed on Amazon; perhaps there’s something more sinister at hand taking place here or the content of the Handbook poses no threat to anybody. It reminds me of those ‘red cover’ books you find at the library, once you check them out you’re on the grid!

    “A Handbook For Right-Wing Youth has been made available… and is also available on Amazon.” Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos who is Jewish! Welcome to Kikeville.. I do believe our youth needs instruction, direction, and a solid academic platform to step off from, they are the future!

    • Martel Mosley

      One need only consult any recent articles from the MSM relating to Bannon and Evola to see that the press considers the latter to be anti-semitic (thereby using this, possibly erroneous, conclusion to tar the latter).

      Your point is invalid; David Duke’s works are available through Amazon, as is the Culture of Critique. Why should a little ‘anti-semitism’ get in the way of a few shekels anyhow?

      So to answer your question no, I wouldn’t dream of messing with anybody here. I didn’t write 2,600+ words to pull legs.

      • Marc Bjorneby

        Thank you Martel Mosley for the follow up. I don’t agree with you and the others on this matter but I am entitled to my opinion. What actually is happening by you and others softening the anti-semitic atmosphere will hurt all of us by the unscrupulous surveillance by our government an profiling all of us through social media owned by Marxist liberal Jews. Crap on a silver spoon is still crap even if you have a queer eye for the Queen Martel.

        I don’t entertain for a moment that the Jewish community would tolerate any of it’s media outlets openly publishing and promoting anti-semitism by anyone! My point is valid. Who in their sound mind spews anti-semtic remarks to all the world, then goes and contradicts themselves by marketing their dogma through Jewish owned social media outlets? (Google, You Tube, Facebook, etc.) I honestly believe you and the likes of others take your audience to be fools otherwise you’d have a ‘fat bold disclaimer’ stating why you are using Jewish owned companies to feed yourselves. Right?

        I’m being polite here.. If your audience is to dimwit and that most absolutely includes David Duke (he can make his own bed) then you all are part of the problem; de facto.

        I do appreciate the fact that you engage your audience Martel Mosley. Writers cramp happens to all of us… I can pay a good writer and employ him/her to write an article on this subject $20 a page; I can further have this article completed within twenty-four hrs or have it completed by the end of the week. Sharpen your skills, yes!

  • Marc Bjorneby

    Thank you Martel Mosley for the feedback. All of you writers for the Alt-right have another 4 yrs. to go before you are in the ‘black’ provided your membership grows at the same rate. I review each organizations 990 filings, provided they’re set up as a non-profit; I don’t recall if Spencer said the Alt-right was under that tax heading.

    Organization I work with excepts donations but doesn’t conform to the IRS 501(c)3 model; the benefits of that don’t require us to open our books to public scrutiny, nor do we give donors tax write offs – absurd to offer a individual tax break on donations that are miniscule.. it won’t even alter their tax bracket to be quite blunt. The customer is always right? Not.

    If I could leave any of you with an ounce of influence, I’d like to see a ‘disclaimer’ on your sites that informs the audience that you do use Jewish owned social media outlets for these reasons. (state them)

    I’m almost 50 yrs of age but I look like I’m 25 yrs old, good genes I suppose… you guys are the future. My son is the future, all I can do is weigh in my two cents here and there.. there’s so much work to be done for our kind! I would take the criticism of the ‘pen’ any day over the ‘sword’. My honour is my loyalty.

    • Martel Mosley

      May I ask what is your organisation?

      Marc, all I can say is stick around. Hopefully one day we will no longer have to rely on YouTube, Amazon, etc.

      I believe a ‘donate to altright.com’ option is coming which may help.

      Until then, we have to use the means at our disposal to continually nudge the Overton Window.

      We do what we can with what we have…

      I appreciate your input and wish you and your son all the best.