1 Introduction

Evola is a figure who has been the vogue in dissident right circles for a few years. Proclaimed as the ”World’s
most right-wing thinker” by Jonathan Bowden, he seems to have been regarded as one of the foremost thinkers
of the movement. When I was involved in this movement, I thought so as well. Then I read him. I read through
Revolt Against the Modern World after I encountered a growing anti-Christian attitude in the dissident right,
and this stream will be responding to that book. I took very serious issues with much of his philosophy, not just
because of my faith, but because of my sense of reality which I had learnt from many of the classics and Sacred
Scripture. Therefore, as I see no other serious criticisms of Evola beyond calling him racist or something, I want
to take on his views. In this stream, I will present his basic historical errors concerning the Old Testament,
the inception of Christianity, and Christian Doctrine. Likewise, I will take time to point out just some of the
doctrines that Evola states are traditional and to show how they are contrary to a consistent reading of the
Scripture and Divine Tradition.
I am going to split this stream into sections, regarding the Old Testament, the Inception of Christianity, Christian
Doctrine, and then, finally, on Evola’s doctrines which are contrary to Christianity. I will give gaps between
these sections for questions.

2 On the Old Testament

Evola’s understanding of the Old Testament seems to be very much of his time, in that it is almost entirely false.
His approach to the division within Israel is reminiscent of outdated critical methods of scripture, which divided
up the scriptures.

2.1 On the Origin of the Pentateuch and the Downfall of Israel

One manifestation of this, I think, is the division he makes between the Priesthood and the Prophets. He states
on Page 241 and 242 of Revolt that Judaism was originally established by a group of priests who were trying
to rule over an ethnically diverse group of people. This origin is true in two senses, although I suspect this is
contrary to Evola’s meaning. Firstly, the founders of the Old Testament Religion, which we will call Israelitism,
were two people of the priestly tribe, Moses and Aaron. Israelitism is the revelations to Moses and the Laws
that originated in the Israelite trek through the wilderness. This can be affirmed as historical due to evidence of
Middle Egyptian loanwords in the Pentateuch (or first five books), the evidence of mass Canaanite settlement
at Avaris in the Land of Goshen, and mentions of Israel on the Meneptah stele of around 1210BC. Additionally,
the Israelites were ethnically mixed, as the Pentateuch itself affirms. This is because many Egyptians fled with
the Israelites into the desert, and because of the distinctions between the Tribes of Israel.

However, of course, a Christian cannot agree that this was simple sacerdotal rule. If this were the case, then
Moses wouldn’t have written laws for Kings in Deuteronomy, which was probably written between 1400BC and
1200BC, due to its unique similarities with Hittite legal codes found exclusively in this time period, as Evangelical
Orientalist Kenneth Kitchen notes. We also cannot agree with where he takes this, as he wants to assert that
Jewish rebelliousness originates in this ethnic diversity. Of course, anybody on the dissident right has heard
this view a million times before. However, as Evola speaks of a specifically Jewish spirit of rebellion, he has to
explain how he can apply this to Jews of the modern era, who are so ethnically set apart that it can sometimes
cause congenital defects. There must have been a time when there was a healthy ethnic unity in Jewish groups,
and yet he poses rebellion as a specifically Jewish quality.

The answer to this question, however, is evident across the entire Old Testament. From the very moment
that the Israelites enter Canaan, they fall into idolatry because of the other nations around them. This happens
throughout history, to the point where Ezra considers this to be such a problem that he tells the Jews to
forsake their wives among the Gentiles. The idolatry of the surrounding nations was the cause of stumbling
among the Israelites. Although they worshipped the highest thing in existence, that pure being from which all
existence originates, they still chose to worship created things. They chose lesser things, not rendering to the one

1
who created them the proper due of worship and obedience, as Evola would expect somebody to do of a king.
Therefore, God drove them out for doing this and the results of such a moral failing.

2.2 Posing Prophets against Priests

However, Evola adds an additional element to this, wherein he poses the Prophets against these Priests. He
places this predominantly in the mouth of Isaiah and Jeremiah, never mind the fact that Isaiah was probably a
priest himself, and Jeremiah was born in one of the Levitical cities that Joshua set aside for the priestly caste.
He probably gets this idea from reading Isaiah 1, wherein it says that the feasts and animal sacrifices of Israel
are not sufficient for him. However, as we see later on in his book, in Isaiah 58, God reproaches their fasting,
which is a similar discipline, on account of their improper behaviour.

Additionally, if Isaiah had meant to rebel against the prescriptions of the Law, even in Ceremonial aspects,
then how is it that the post-exilic Jews still added ceremonies, such as Purim as we see noted in Esther? This
entire case rests on a giant assumption, and that there was a hermeneutic of discontinuity among the exiles
to Babylon, when this couldn’t have been the case. Some men survived the entire breadth of the exile, even
returning to see the temple rebuilt under Zorobabel. This same group also included Daniel, who was familiar
with Jeremiah, as we see in Daniel 9. How could they have forgotten this? Indeed, this forgetfulness would have
to be so deep as to deceive Zechariah, one of the minor prophets, into saying that all nations shall observe the
feast of tabernacles, which these priests established. Surely Zechariah would have known of this if there were
such a struggle?

There is also a massive flaw in one of his footnotes, which asserts that these prophets were also utterly
entranced when they were prophesying. This doesn’t make much sense, because God also creates the nature of
man, including the rational faculties of the prophet. God calls these good, so why would he utterly override
the rationality of these people? Why would he produce a stumbling block in the form of a madman gibbering?
Would this not be contrary to the order of nature? So how can this be the case. Our Catechism goes as far
as to assert that there was human cooperation with the divine in the production of all scripture, including the
prophets, even the late ones who would be deep in the prophetism that Evola labels it, such as Zechariah.

2.3 The Messiah as Cope

Zechariah also proclaims the coming of the Messiah in his book, which is another point that Evola is contentious
about. He asserts that the Messiah was initially invented, and again he cites Isaiah and Jeremiah for this idea of
a military messiah, which then degenerated into an idea of a messiah bringing the end of the world who would
redeem Israel. Now, setting aside that this propitiatory messiah is mentioned in Isaiah 53, we ought to look for
other sources to back this up. Job, which is a book where dating is extraordinarily loose, states that Job will see
his redeemer with his own eyes. Now, God is the redeemer of Israel, as we see in Isaiah, which therefore means
that there would be an incarnation of God. Additionally, we see in the Hebrew version of the Book of Numbers,
in Chapter 24:1-19
Then Balak’s anger burned against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam, “I
called you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have persisted in blessing them these three times! So flee to your
place now. I said I would honor you greatly, but behold, the Lord has held you back from honor.” And Balaam
said to Balak, “Did I not in fact tell your messengers whom you had sent to me, saying, ‘If Balak were to give
me his house full of silver and gold, I could not do anything contrary to the [l]command of the Lord, either good
or bad, of my own [m]accord. What the Lord speaks, I will speak’ ? So now, behold, I am going to my people;
come, and I will advise you of what this people will do to your people in the days to come (Literally the End of
Days).”
Then he took up his discourse and said,
“The declaration of Balaam the son of Beor, And the declaration of the man whose eye is opened, The decla-
ration of him who hears the words of God, And knows the knowledge of the Most High, Who sees the vision of
the Almighty, Falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered: I see him, but not now; I look at him, but not near;

2
A star shall appear from Jacob, A scepter shall rise from Israel, And shall smash the [s]forehead of Moab, And
overcome all the sons of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir, its enemies, also will be a possession,
While Israel performs valiantly. One from Jacob shall rule, And will eliminate the survivors from the city.”
This was written around 500 years before Evola states. This was also read continually during the post-exilic
period, so the idea that Judaism somehow lost contact with this military messiah is absurd. They even used
to pray the Psalms that proclaimed a military messiah each day, including Psalms which portray the Father
and Type of the Messiah, David, as suffering grievously. The very nature of the Jewish tradition, especially
post-exile, means that the expectations couldn’t have degenerated, especially considering the same Law which
the priests wrote, in Deuteronomy, provides specific guidelines to vet prophets to make sure they’re not frauds.

3 On Early Christianity
Evola asserts that this ”prophetism” as he calls it, was where Christianity emerged. He portrays it, rather
illiterately, as this overly emotional cult of maniacs, who had this feeling of grace by which they’re safe. We will
cover his doctrinal errors in a bit but I want to note something quickly

3.1 On Martyrdom and Feelings

Evola was not a stupid man, he knew that emotions were something of the body more than the non-physical
aspects of man. Evola then proceeds to assert that this overly emotivistic cult also manically ran to their deaths
at the hands of the Romans. This could not be further from the truth. First of all, as emotions are of the body,
how can it be that an emotivistic cult could set aside those feelings to die in utterly brutal ways. It makes no
sense. Additionally, a brief reading of early martyrdom accounts can put this idea that they’re raving lunatics
aside very quickly. To demonstrate this, we’re going to read the martyrdom account of my patron saint, who
was a Greek Philosopher and Apologist called St Justin Martyr.
READ THE ACCOUNT
As we can see from this account, very calm and very ordered. If this were a bunch of people hyped up on
emotions, don’t you think that fear would have struck them very strongly, or that they might have been defiant
until the end, shouting curses at those who were killing them? Yet, we do not see this here. The Christian
religion is founded on Joy and Calm, not the swirling of the emotions. Any reading of any spiritual book of the
Catholic or Eastern Orthodox will tell you that. The main descriptor of growth in the spiritual life, which are
the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways, go back to the third century, and much of our monasticism and
hermitic practice is found in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Never once do they ever encourage mindless emotivism.

4 On Christian Doctrine
This utter misapprehension of Christian and Jewish history may be part of the reason why he is so utterly weak,
but one also wonders if Evola had ever made a serious attempt to read the scriptures or early Christian history
at all.

4.1 On the Papacy

Evola believes as he states on page 288 of Revolt, that Catholicism developed out of Primitive Christianity, in
a way that he describes as implying an ordered rupture from the original tradition. However, this couldn’t be
further from the truth, as we see in the manifestation of the Teaching Office which characterises Catholicism,
the Papacy, as manifest in St Peter in Scripture. Not only is he told at the end of John 21 that he is to feed his
sheep, but he also has power over life and death in Acts 5, he changes discipline and interprets his own vision
on the fly in his meeting with Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11, and says that by his mouth the gentiles should hear
the gospel in Acts 15, before other apostles. The meeting with Cornelius is even more interesting considering

3
that St Peter states in his second letter that scripture is not a matter of private interpretation, and yet in his
own right can suspend the ceremonial law even when it hasn’t been formally made unbinding by a council. We
see this in the Fathers also. For example, St Ignatius of Antioch states in his Epistle to the Romans, where
he says that the See ”presides of Charity”, which in light of John 21 seems to affirm the feeding of sheep, for
Christ tells St Peter to feed his sheep in response to Christ questioning him about his love for him. On top
of this, we see the likes of St Irenaeus in Chapter 3 of Book 3 of Against Heresies stating that all churches
are churches only if they agree with Rome, by the Apostles St Peter and St Paul. Likewise, St Augustine
proclaims Rome as the See which cannot fail in numerous places. In fact, the sheer number of patristic wit-
nesses to the Papacy is too many to proclaim here, so I will simply redirect everybody with any interest in this to
Reason and Theology, which is a channel that has hours and hours of content on this topic, and on other subjects.

4.2 On the Sacraments of Initiation

As if stating the rupture which lead to Catholicism wasn’t enough, Evola denies that Christianity is an initiational
religion. One struggles to believe that Evola had even opened a bible when he asserted this. However, I do know
that Evola published papers for a Baptist Journal, and so this may be where this comes from because for almost
everybody Baptism is an initiatory sacrament, alongside Confirmation for Apostolic Churches. We would hold,
with basically everybody before the 17th Century, that baptism regenerates and is not merely a sign of faith. In
the words of the Prophet Ezekiel, in Chapter 47 of his book
Then he brought me back to the door of the house; and behold, water was flowing from under the threshold of the
house toward the east, for the house faced east. And the water was flowing down from under, from the right side
of the house, from south of the altar. And he brought me out by way of the north gate and led me around on the
outside to the outer gate, by the way facing east. And behold, water was spurting out from the south side.
When the man went out toward the east with a line in his hand, he measured a thousand cubits, and he led me
through the water, water reaching the ankles. Again he measured a thousand and led me through the water, water
reaching the knees. Again he measured a thousand and led me through the water, water reaching the hips. Again
he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not [d]wade across, because the water had risen, enough
water to swim in, a river that could not be crossed by wading. And he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen
this?” Then he brought me back to the bank of the river. Now when I had returned, behold, on the bank of the
river there were very many trees on the one side and the other. Then he said to me, “These waters go out toward
the eastern region and go down into the Arabah; then they go toward the sea, being made to flow into the sea, and
the waters of the sea become fresh. And it will come about that every living creature which swarms in every place
where the river goes, will live. And there will be very many fish, for these waters go there and the others become
fresh; so everything will live where the river goes. And it will come about those fishermen will stand beside it;
from Engedi to Eneglaim there will be a place for the spreading of nets. Their fish will be according to their kinds,
as the fish of the Great Sea, very many. But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be left for
salt. And by the river on its bank, on one side and the other will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves
will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month because their water flows from the
sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.”
The Early Christians are utterly unanimous on Baptismal Regeneration being real, and henceforth the Baptism
having a real initiatory character. Confirmation completes this grace received.

4.3 On God as Passable

He also thinks that under the incarnation, that God ceases to be pure being, but becomes entirely a man. This
heresy is a strange inverse Monophysitism, in that Evola is stating that God’s nature changed to become one
nature as human. Monophysitism was condemned formally in the 5th Century, and its inverse is even more
strange from Evola. Not even the most extreme Arian would hold to this position. However, even before this,
the problem of God becoming passible was a nonstarter. Among the Early Heresies of Christianity, the only
one which comes even close to this were the Ebionites, who didn’t believe Jesus was God. The other heretics
tended to believe Jesus was a spiritual being more than being a human. St Irenaeus, writing at the close of
the 2nd Century even asserts against them proclaiming that they disbelieve in ”The Union of God and Man” in

4
Book V, Chapter I of Against Heresies, while he affirms the absolute perfection of God. The mere fact that this
same Doctor, with the entirety of Christianity, proclaims that Jesus can grant eternal life is, in fact, implicitly
affirming the utter incorruptibility and impassibility of the Divine person of Christ. Such is implied by St Ire-
naeus again when he states ”For what honour can those things which are temporal confer on such as are eternal
and endure forever? Or those which pass away on such as remain? Or those which are corruptible on such as
are incorruptible?”, for his juxtaposition asserts that eternal life belongs to the incorruptible, and hence to the
Divine nature. St Justin Martyr also describes this same divine nature as without impurity, and states in his
First Apology ”For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted
with the Father nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word
of God, is even God.”. Therefore, to assert Christ makes God passable is absurd.

4.4 Overemphasis on the Son

Evola also states another absurdity, about the same Son, in that he believes that the Son is somehow placed
above the Father. This is absurd, because even in Early Christianity when Christology hadn’t been pronounced
on properly if anything, the issues predominantly focused on denigrating the nature of the Son. Arianism made
the Son into a Creature, and hence lower than God, and Sabellianism made the Son into a mere aspect of the One
God, with the Father and the Spirit. To assert that the Son was too highly revered in Early Christianity, outside
of bizarre gnostic movements who thought that the Father, by virtue of the Old Testament, was evil, is ridiculous.

4.5 On Mary
In the same vein, he makes the mistake of suggesting that the synoptic gospels play down Mary’s nature, and
even goes as far as to compare her to a fertility goddess, citing St Jerome in a footnote. Now, to state that
Mary is underplayed because of the volume of the text on her in Luke is ridiculous. The multitude of words
on a particular thing doesn’t denigrate the importance of that thing, especially somebody like Mary, whose
role is enunciated by reading the rest of the scripture in her context. For instance, her queenhood of heaven
is made manifest by reading the Old Testament, wherein the queen of Israel was also the King’s mother, as
the King had multiple wives. Her queenhood of the angels is manifested in how the Archangel Gabriel, who is
by nature superior to Our Lady, nonetheless hails her, indicating her superiority in rank, while others tremble
in fear before the Archangels, as we see in Tobit with Raphael and Zechariah with the same Gabriel. In nei-
ther of these accounts does the Angel state such words. For such was the grace that Our Lady received from God.

4.6 On Grace
But to Evola, this grace is simply a feeling. To which I ask him if Christians view grace as simply a feeling, how
can it be that an Archangel, who is a great and incorruptible spirit, bows before a human nature embued with
that grace? How is it that the passible emotion can cause the impassible spirit to bow? It doesn’t.

4.7 On the Desacralisation of Nature

Seemingly as a result of this concern for grace and the incorruptible king of the Universe, Evola complains of
a desacralisation of nature. Now, I don’t know how anybody can read Genesis 1 and not consider nature to be
good. The fact that Christ took flesh should tell us that nature is good. So to say that we hate nature is silly.
If anything, Evola, with his desire to escape the realm of becoming, and all that is merely human, is more apt
to despise nature. If, as he says, an ordinary man is merely doomed to a second death and is unable to abide
in the realm of being, then how can it be that animals and plants and mountains and the sky can abide being
completely physical in nature? We believe that the World is reconciled in Christ, and God positively willed the
World as good, although not worthy of the worship due to God. Yet Evola, if he were consistent, wouldn’t make

5
this criticism as it seems to me he has a stronger dislike of nature than we do.

5 On Evolan Doctrines contrary to Christianity

As we have seen, Evola doesn’t understand Christianity. However, the errors go deeper than this, and hence
they need refutation.

5.1 On the Hierarchy of Worship

For example, one of the things that he suggests different gods ought to be worshipped by different castes. This is
trivial for a Christian to see as false because there is a single God to whom all offer worship. However, even from
a pagan position, this makes little sense as well, because why should your blood change the worthiness of worship
towards a particular god, if they can even be called gods at all, being often weakened by a lack of sacrifices and
ultimately being limited beings which are subservient to ultimate reality, be that the Lord or Brahman, whatever
it is called.

5.2 The Nature of the Soul and Pelagianism

A much nastier problem is that of salvation. One of the things which Evola is often apt to repeat is that he
thinks that the soul being immortal is a strange view. He holds that only heroes and such are immortal and that
the common man dies physically, and then his spirit undergoes a slow fading away, which he calls the second death.

Now, if man is spiritual, in the sense that his intellect and will are non-divisible and aren’t composed of
things, how can this be? Something in this state either exists or does not exist, so Evola is basically stating that
spiritual things are composed if this is going to be able to happen and therefore composed and thus in the world
of Becoming.

However, the greater error is found in chapter 8, where he asserts that the patricians and aristocrats when
they die, begin to possess a self-subsistent and transcendent eternal life, although as we will discuss I don’t think
he means this in an absolute sense.

Incorruptibility implies one of two things, either that the aristocrat obliterates his ability to undergo decay,
despite his inherently corruptible nature, or that there is some sort of vicarious action of something else which
does have this on the aristocrat. As I have no particular issue with the latter case, I will deal with the former.
How can it be that an aristocrat can change his own immutable nature? This would be akin to a cat, through its
own effort, becoming a dog. So then how can a man become a not man? If man has inherently within himself to
die two deaths, how can any act, short of some greater being recognising it and granting incorruptibility, remove
this property? Through some sort of ritual that makes actual a potential that somehow obliterates the very
nature with that potential? This is sheer nonsense, because it requires, for a nature to be fully actual, for it to
destroy itself.

Additionally, what can this man’s action add to himself that would make him immortal? If he is by his nature,
perishable, then how can he make himself imperishable? He cannot give what he does not have, therefore, any act
in itself will never ever increase his being. The potential to do this must be granted by something which is not him.

Thirdly, each of these people are by nature perishable. For this to work in a qualified sense, they must have
received their self-subsistent being from something else, so self-subsistence is impossible for them without this
being. Therefore, they cannot be said to be self-subsistent as they are reliant on something else.

Finally, although Evola doesn’t mean this, self-subsistence can be read to mean self-existent independent of
prior being, so I write this for the benefit of certain interpretations. The mere fact that these people can interact

6
with the world shows that there is a unity to this world, which is evident through the ability of the aristocrat
to interact with things besides himself. These things do not possess their existence, but rather are granted their
existence from something else, because if they didn’t share a commonality in existence they would be utterly
imperceptible. Therefore, for an aristocrat to be self-subsistent, he would need to entirely divorce himself from
his own existence, which is granted by something else. Now, this is impossible because this would mean he would
have to become not himself in any way, which means that it makes no sense to call him eternal. Likewise, if
this were possible, this would mean that, by virtue of being his own act of self-sufficiency, that he would be
entirely cut off from everything else, because that self sufficiency would have to be different from everything else,
including the origin which unifies all things, to make it distinct. This would include every other aristocrat as well.

6 On Spiritual Forces and the Lack of Personhood in Demons

As well as misapprehending human salvation, he also makes mistakes concerning spiritual entities as well. He
asserts in Chapter 7 that, in the Ancient World, the spirituality of the Ancient World was originally nothing more
than experience and that the gods are more like forces than personal deities. He makes a distinction between
what the common people believed, which are that the beings are personal, and those who have ”inner doctrine”
which makes these into spiritual forces. He speaks of these as ”Superrational and Superhuman ways of being”.

These are used for rituals. Evola speaks about these rituals in which there are changes in the soul, such as the
consecration of a King, which is something akin to how we understand Catholic ordination, which is the giving
of an indelible mark to a person, or the actualising of a potential which is already in the spirit. He states that
this is nothing more than the priest manipulating various forces to achieve a particular effect in combination
with his spiritual state. This raises a man to a higher state based on the forces actualising the potential to be
something like a King which was already present in his nature.

This, however, raises a problem for Evola. If he claims that the gods are higher levels of being, then why do
they not possess personhood, intellect, and will? They need not possess personhood in a human manner, but it
would be strange if forces higher than humans did not possess something resembling our highest faculties, our
intellect and will.

Now, if Evola insists that these higher entities must be dumb forces to be manipulated by a priest, then how
can they be higher than us? Every manipulator must be greater than the one he manipulates in some quality.
For example, a man can have power over a stupider man through his cleverness or over a weaker man through
his physical strength. It would then follow that the forces must be lower than the priest. In that case, in what
sense are these forces superrational and supernatural? Is the priest something other than human, or are these
forces not, in fact, superior to us?

Now, on top of this fact, there is the reality that these sorts of occultists have a funny habit of becoming
possessed. Roman Catholic Priests, such as Fr Ripperger, even speak to these sorts of demons. They respond.
If these demons are impersonal, then how is it that they speak? Does this not only pertain to things with an
intellect and will, and hence some sort of personhood unifying the creature?

7 Conclusion
As we can see from this overview of Evola’s spiritual doctrine, and his antipathy toward Christianity, we can
see that Evola neither understood Christianity nor Judaism. Despite some references to the fathers here and
there and even pagan polemicists whose works are found exclusively in Christian responses, he has manifestly
failed to apprehend the faith. We have also professed to speak of some of Evola’s own doctrines, which I haven’t
mentioned all of them that I might take issue with. For example, the doctrine of spiritual race I don’t sufficiently
understand to respond to, knowing he mentions this in Revolt, but also knowing he wrote more on this. As this

7
is intended to spark a dialogue about this man with those who affirm some or all of his doctrines, I would like
this to begin a fruitful dialogue with such people, so please reach out.