Metaphysics of War by Julius Evola

Metaphysics of War Reviews

• 
  Joseph Hirsch

  Like with Ernst Junger, Julius Evola sometimes gets slandered and lumped in with Nazis, but his traditionalist, elite view of the warrior and what he represents (and transcends) is at odds with the plebeian nature of the Third Reich. and his critique of the harnessing of the warrior spirit for the bourgeois project of empire, colonialism, and the military-industrial complex (then unnamed, but still in its nascent form) shows not only how silly the "Nazi" brand is, but how Pyrrhic a task it is trying to plot such a fluid thinker on a Left-Right axis.
  
  My only minor quibble (and it is minor) is that some of the essays don't so much compliment each other, as reiterate their themes. A more varied selection on the same topic would have been better, but this is the fault of the publisher, not of the writer. Recommended for anyone who likes to think about man's propensity for transcendence, through combat or other means, regardless of your own political outlook.
• 
  Duarte

  This is a not a book analyzing war, this is a LARP book and I mean that in an extremely literal sense, if you have the eye for it you can see it many many times, but there's this moment where Evola really gives the game away to even the most naive and uncritical of readers, in the article "Soul and Race of War", where he writes
  
  
  Let us come now to our final point, which is the clarification of the sense of our war and our heroism on the basis of the general doctrinal and historical views we have expressed. At the risk of being taken for hopeless Utopians we will never grow tired of repeating that our taking up once more of the Aryan and Roman symbols must lead to the taking up once more, also, of the spiritual and traditional conceptions which were peculiar to the original civilisations which developed under those symbols.
  
  
  And there you have it, the entire 150 pages that make up the book are completely contained in that one line - Evola makes a big philosophical system out of war, worthy of any academic philistine (which he ostensibly hates), separating "aristocratic" from "secular" from "bourgeois" ("bourgeois" is used here negatively - when these articles were nothing but propaganda for the most bourgeois war in all of human history!) from "proletarian" wars, none of them based on class analysis but all of them based on the "spirit" of the war and the "race" of the peoples who fight it, but the entire shtick is revealed in its nakedness right there in that single paragraph.
  
  It does not actually matter if a war is "aristocratic", "secular", "bourgeois" or "proletarian" - we take up the symbols of ancient Roman-Aryan warfare, therefore this war we are fighting, which is PURELY bourgeois and motivated entirely by big finance, which Evola ostensibly despises, is exactly like ancient Roman-Aryan war - because its symbols have taken up. "Aristocratic", "secular", "bourgeois" or "proletarian" are thus words that are completely devoid of substance because they only refer to the "symbols" taken up by the contending sides, i.e. their FASHION SENSE. The Russian civil war (a communist war) and the Great Patriotic War (an imperialist war) are both "proletarian" because they both use communist symbols, i.e. they both dress in red, i.e. they both share the same fashion sense despite being substantially entirely different from each other.
  
  All this shit about "race" and "blood" and "spirit" is, probably accidentally, revealed entirely in this single statement - "we dress in the clothes of X, therefore we are X".
  
  Evola despises the wars of big finance as being signs of a decadent age, but this war of big finance - the war of big finance, WW2 - is heroic because one of the sides has dressed themselves in the clothes of Ancient Rome.
  
  And what do we call when we dress up in the clothes of something we're not and play a part? Play a role, perhaps? In live action, rather than in text or a video game or a tabletop game?
  
  This is not the only time where Evola drops the ball and reveals his hand of cards to anyone who isn't a total idiot, but it is the most blatant as it essentially comes down to "we dress up in the glory of the Roman Empire, therefore we have the glory of the Ancient Romans upon us, even though we are fighting a bourgeois war of finance that we are being farcically humiliated on".
  
  Another example where the ball is comically dropped is when he defends Imperial Germany in WW1. Evola writes this about WW1 and WW2, in 1940:
  
  "Bourgeois nature has two main aspects: sentimentalism and economic interest. If the ideology of ‘freedom’, and ‘nation’ democratically conceived, corresponds to the first aspect, the second has no less weight in the unconfessed motives of ‘bourgeois war’. The 1914-1918 war shows clearly, in fact, that the ‘noble’ democratic ideology was only a cover, while the part which international finance really played is now well-known. And today, in the new war, this appears even more clearly: the sentimental pretexts offered have proved to be more and more inconsistent, and it is obvious, on the contrary, that material and plutocratic interests, and the desire to maintain a monopoly upon the raw materials of the world, as well as upon gold, are what have set the ‘tone’ of the fight of the democratic Allies and have led them to take up arms and ask millions of men to sacrifice their lives."
  
  In this he is entirely correct. But then, like a poker player who hasn't been exactly taught the most basic rules of the game, he completely reveals his hand:
  
  "Over and against this view [democratic "The Central Powers are aggressors and their oppressive regimes are remnants of medievalism"] there is the other according to which the military element permeates the political, and also the ethical, order. Military values here are authentic warrior values and have a fundamental part in the general ideal of an ethical formation of life; an ideal valid also, therefore, beyond the strictly military plane and periods of war. The result is a limitation of the civilian bourgeoisie, politically, and of the bourgeois spirit in general in all sectors of social life. True civilisation is conceived of here in virile, active and heroic terms: and it is on this basis that the elements which define all human greatness, and the real rights of the peoples, are understood.
  
  "It hardly needs to be said that, in the 1914-1918 World War, the former ideology was proper to the Allies and above all to the western and Atlantic democracies, while the latter was essentially represented by the Central Powers. According to a well-known Masonic watchword – which we have often recalled here – that war was fought as a sort of great crusade of worldwide democracy[4] against ‘militarism’ and ‘Prussianism’, which, to those ‘imperialist’ nations, represented ‘obscurantist’ residues within ‘developed’ Europe."
  
  Just like that little quote about how adorning the symbols of something makes you something, Evola reveals here his true interests, which is not the "nature" or "spirit" of anything, but how something is dressed and how adept it is at LARPing or cosplaying.
  
  He admits that by now everyone knows that the first world war was an imperialist war of plunder instigated by big finance, which is trivially correct, and does not distinguish between sides, but then drops the ball by simply stating that the Central Powers were strong and virile and full of good "warrior values" and all that jazz. All this is to say - the bourgeois war of finance which I ostensibly hate is all fine because one of the sides dresses in the colors of medieval warriors, which I am rather fond of. Except this was not even true, because what encouraged the soldiers to fight in WW1 where the pseudo-revolutionary lies of the SPD, which would be very "proletarian" indeed for Monsieur Evola, the German soldiers were NOT motivated by "warrior spirit", but precisely by those myths which he hates, and what's more, when they saw the gig was up, they brought the communist revolution home, the thing Evola hates the most! How "warrior-like" of the German soldiers!
  
  Evola is very offended by the victory of the "democratic" Entente, and shows how hypocritical it is:
  "With the peace treaties and the developments of the post-war period this has become more and more evident. The function of the military element deteriorated into that of a sort of international police force – or, rather than really ‘international’, a police force organised by a certain group of nations to impose, against the will of the others and for their own profit, a given actual situation: since this was, and is, what ‘the defence of peace’ and ‘the rights of nations’ really mean. The decline of all feelings of warrior-like pride and honour was subsequently demonstrated by the fact that all sorts of ignoble means were developed to secure the desired results without even having to resort to this army degraded to the status of international police: systems of sanctions, economic blockades, national boycotts, etc."
  
  It's completely true - the armies were international police forces (against the proletariat, not the imaginary warriors that exist in Evola's head) and that "defense of peace" was nothing but the schemes of capitalist scoundrels. But again the hand is revealed by the fact that he says that if the central powers won, this wouldn't be the case - then it would be, I'll repeat the passage:
  "True civilisation is conceived of here in virile, active and heroic terms: and it is on this basis that the elements which define all human greatness, and the real rights of the peoples, are understood".
  
  One side does this, and is dressed in fashion that monsieur Evola is not very fond of, so this means that we are in the Kali Yuga and the great warrior spirit is being repressed by bourgeois mediocrity and so on and so on. If the other side, exactly the same, did the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons, for the exact same purposes, then citoyen Evola would be most pleased because this side happens to have impeccable fashion taste.
  
  It is not even a matter of wrong analyses, of essentialist analyses, of petit-bourgeois philistinism, of "disgusting" racism, of glorifying war or whatever.
  
  It's that this is a literal LARP book where the substance, which is ostensibly the thing in question when words like "the nature", "the spirit", etc of something are thrown around, is literally Evola's least concern, because his concerns start and end at "what symbols are the sides in different wars wearing", aka what role are they pretending to play, i.e. LARPing.
  
  Monsieur Evola considers the modern world decadent because the heroic spirit is slowly being drained out of wars - they start out as sacred, then are secularized, then are "for the fatherland" and then finally by and for the slaves, the proletariat, the lowest class for him.
  
  Being a true aristocrat of the soul, he puts it upon himself to analyze the matter of war in history, one of the most important things in all of history to analyze, and against the decadent modern bourgeois world he puts forth this bold thesis: THE NATURE AND SPIRIT OF WAR DEPENDS ON THE FASHION OF THE CONFLICTING SIDES - WHETHER YOU MAKE CONTACT WITH THE "SUPRA-NATIONAL" DURING WAR DEPENDS ON YOUR FASHION TASTE DURING THE FIGHTING.
  
  Monsieur Evola is an expert fashion designer however, and as such he is not content with "taking inspiration" from the Romans as Mussolini was - everything here is robbed, from the Bhagavad Gita to the Kuran, all done as if one was quote-mining for positive reviews of one's fashion line.
  
  Per example on the distinction between Greater and Lesser jihad in Islam, "Baron" Evola has this to say:
  
  "Having said that, in the tradition in question two ‘holy wars’ are distinguished: the ‘greater holy war’ and the ‘lesser holy war’. The distinction is based on a saying of the Prophet, who, when he got back from a military expedition, said, ‘I return now from the lesser to the greater war’.
  
  "In this respect the greater holy war belongs to the spiritual order. The lesser holy war, in contrast, is the physical struggle, the material war, fought in the outer world. The greater holy war is the struggle of man against the enemies he bears in himself. More precisely, it is the fight of the supernatural element, innate in man, against everything which is instinctual, passionate, chaotic and subject to the forces of nature. This is also the idea that reveals itself in a text of the ancient Aryan warrior wisdom, the Bhagavad-Gita: ‘Thus knowing oneself to be transcendental to the material senses, mind and intelligence, O mighty-armed Arjuna, one should steady the mind by deliberate spiritual intelligence and thus – by spiritual strength – conquer this insatiable enemy known as lust’ (3:43)."
  
  
  We rob from the Bhagavad Gita and from the Kuran to say, essentially, the following: the actual war, the nature of which is ostensibly the topic of the book, does not matter, what matters is the interior experience, feelings, etc of the individual fighter.
  
  This is a repeat of the whole symbol argument - the actual nature of the war does not matter, but only what the fighter "gets" from it "spiritually", i.e. (no matter how much Monsieur Evola would have hated that we reduce it to these terms), what the individual fighter feels about the war.
  
  It does not matter that the Italian soldier was killed for the sake of the profits of the Italian bourgeoisie, he did it while wearing the symbols of ancient Rome and so he died for the same principles as the Ancient Romans, while the Allied soldiers do the exact same thing, but they do not fight with the delusion that they are restoring ancient Rome but fall for the stupid lie of bourgeois democracy, therefore they are inferior, either spiritually or racially.
  
  The same stupid, idiotic principles can be adopted to the left, there is nothing aristocratic about them: It does not matter that the anarchist in Ukraine right now is fighting "for the fatherland" alongside the fascist, for this is the "lesser jihad", and he has won the "greater jihad" against the fascist in himself, by acting, by LARPing, as if the war is an anti-fascist crusade. Exact same mentality.
  
  
  All in all, if you want to look at war the same way one looks at a fashion catalogue, you might like this book. Unfortunately monsieur Evola promised me that this book would be about WAR and not FASHION, so I cannot recommend it... perhaps he should have written for Vogue instead?
  
  Monsieur Evola is obsessed with a specific form of fashion, cosplay: he cannot help but be a puppet of the Italian bourgeoisie and writing his bellicose dribble because he is that obsessed with cosplaying as the Romans in WW2.
  
  Perhaps he would be a better fit for the contemporary world where this boner for war cosplay could have been softened by discharging inside of a literal cosplayer, his penis rather than his rifle mind you, at some anime con, rather than a war-zone, the same war-zone where Evola often walked around the city during air raids to better "ponder his destiny" until a piece of destiny lodged itself in his spine, rendering him paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life. Perhaps destiny would have been better contemplated while feeling up the breasts of a 02 cosplayer? We would resolve both the cosplay fixation and the spinal chord situation in one fell swoop then.
  
  Unfortunately he was born then and not now and so we all have to suffer a small army of pseuds online who mold their pathetic personalities, or lack of them, around such bad quality literature. I am sure that quite a few of them will angrily comment on this review - they will be promptly ignored, because as we have established, they belong at a LARPing event, not in analyzing war.
• 
  Finny

  ''The fundamental principle underlying all justifications of war, from the point of view of human personality, is 'heroism.' War, it is said, offers man the opportunity to awaken the hero who sleeps within him. War breaks the routine of comfortable life; by means of its severe ordeals, it offers a transfiguring knowledge of life, life according to death. The moment the individual succeeds in living as a hero, even if it is the final moment of his earthly life, weighs infinitely more on the scale of values than a protracted existence spent consuming monotonously among the trivialities of cities. From a spiritual point of view, these possibilities make up for the negative and destructive tendencies of war, which are one-sidedly and tendentiously highlighted by pacifist materialism.''
  
  Metaphysics of War is a collection of a dozen essays by Julius Evola that deal with the idea of restructuring society in such a way that places the warrior caste—the term Evola uses to refer to those among us who, in centuries past, would have been centurions or crusaders—as the ruling class. This, he argues, would bring back and depth of life that has been erased by the materialist bourgeoisie's reign of worms.
  Evola argues that only the short sighted or prejudiced could attempt to claim that a warrior ruled order would lead to constant chaos, warfare, and an individuality crushing formalism. Rather, since a true warrior must possess a mastery of the self, a love for distance (solitude/individual freedom) and order, the ability to subordinate his passionate emotions to considered principles, and a sense of dignity devoid of vanity, a civilisation ruled by his caste would respect the individual, strive for peace, and create a society with depth and meaning—in contrast to the pure materialist societies that we inhabit, and which Evola sees as a degeneration from the spiritually fulfilling societies of the past.
  
  Evola also takes pains to specify the difference between a warrior and a soldier. Soldiers being detached, passionless, and means to an end; warriors, on the other hand, being passionate individuals who live for the depth of life attained through the hardship of war, and the depth of peace that winning a truly Earth shattering conflict can bring about.
  
  To that end, Evola cites pre-Christian Rome as an example of a society that had a deep, war borne sense of purpose.
  He's not shy in admitting Rome wasn't perfect—his radical traditionalism doesn't blind him to the objectively good developments of modernity—but he also points to ancient Rome's exaltation of spiritual warfare—both the internal struggle against yourself and the external struggle against the enemy—as a society operating on a level of spirituality that justifies, in his eyes, the hardship, cruelty, and bloodshed that came along with it.
  
  Heroism, in its Olympian sense, in some form, is, for a person's spiritual development, an absolute neccessity.
  There are people out there—Evola's 'warrior caste'—who need to be perpetually overcoming hardship, fighting battles against all the odds. For this warrior caste to be spiritually fulfilled they need to take on tasks so arduous that the only way to succeed is to throw themselves at their tasks completely, risking life and limb, and surviving on sheer force of will, to reach a higher state of consciousness.
  But, beyond this warrior caste, Evola argues that the rest of society also needs this transcendent warrior experience. The experience of looking death and defeat dead in the eye, and then walking toward it.
  Sure, many of these people will fail, but they'll get perspective on their souls nonetheless. Attempting greatness and falling short is far more valuable than a life forever lived in safety and comfort.
  
  Because the flipside of transcencdence is Evola's conception of the demon.
  The demon is the antithesis of transcendence; rather than transcending the fear of death through the attainment of a higher spirituality, demonhood is deliberately ignoring the fear of death through an obsessive materialist immediacy. The demon are the hobbies and vices to transcendence's passions and virtues. The demon is cruelty, while transcendence is justice.
  The demon spreads through modernity like a virus and destroys everything it touches.
  
  In a time of war, the transcended individual (the supra-personal hero) can cast their life aside with total clarity, at the most intense possible moment, secure in the knowledge that they leave Earth spiritually fulfilled and having made a mark; this warrior faces death by meeting him as an equal and embracing him willingly.
  Conversely, the demonic individual (the sub-personal hero) casts their life aside casually, through fear or avoidance of pain, sacrificing themselves for some outside force, either as a mere soldier of this force, or as someone who surrenders their spot on Earth to make room for this force; this warrior is cruel and violent, finding a sinister joy in the destruction of itself and of those around it, but when he meets death he feels fear.
  
  That's the broadest of broad strokes. Evola's thought is so intersecting and complex that it's difficult to sum up in a short review.
  
  To touch briefly on the book's form: Evola's work is written with perfect clarity. There is no deliberately obfuscating language, and the few obscure references that Evola does make—mostly to historical events and Eastern religious texts—have been tagged with little explanatory footnotes by the book's editor.
  While Evola has a reputation for being difficult to read, his work—in these essays at least—seems perfectly readable. Definitely don't let Evola's reputation put you off if you're on the fence about reading him.
  
  The only slight issue with Metaphysics of War, and what stops it getting a 5/5 rating, is just the redundancy of much of the text. Evola originally wrote the essays in this book for a series of bi-weekly and monthly columns in various magazines.
  While readers reading each chapter months apart might have found the reiteration useful, it becomes frustrating when reading the work in one big chunk. There are a few essays here that just aren't worth reading, because they only serve to reiterate the previous essay, and that's a shame. I'd say about 30% of this book is only worth skimming over because of this.
  That said, I appreciate Evola's work being reprinted in its entirety, and I wouldn't want these essays cut—their archival value more than makes up for their redundancy.
  
  Overall, Metaphysics of War is a truly unique philosophical work, and one I'm glad to have read.
  
  This is my first Evola, but he doesn't seem nearly as scary as I was led to believe.
• 
  Justinian the Great

  "They are not illuminated by any superior element; no force from above supports them in the vicissitudes and contingencies with which their life in space and in time presents them. In these ordeals, what predominates in them is the collectivist element, in the form of instinct, ‘genius of the species’, or spirit and unity of the horde. Broadly speaking, the feeling of race and blood here can be stronger and surer than in other peoples or stocks: nevertheless, it always represents something sub-personal and completely naturalistic, such as, for example, the dark ‘totemism’ of savage populations, in which the totem, which is in a way the mystical entity of the race or tribe but meaningfully associated with a given animal species, is conceived as something prior to each individual, as soul of its soul, not in the abstract, in theory, but in every expression of daily life. Having referred to the savages, incidentally, and reserving the right to return eventually to the argument involved, we must indicate the error of those who consider the savages as ‘primitives’, that is, as the original forms of humanity; from which, according to the usual mendacious theory of the inferior miraculously giving rise to the superior, superior races would have ‘evolved’. In many cases it is exactly the contrary which is true. Savages, and many races which we can consider as ‘natural’, are only the last degenerate remnants of vanished, far anterior, superior races and civilisations, even the name of which has often not reached us. This is why the presumed ‘primitives’ who still exist today do not tend to ‘evolve’, but rather disappear definitively and become extinct."
  
  "He [modern man] looks rather like what primitive peoples in reality, and not in the view of evolutionists, are: beings which, even though they proceed from originally superior races, have degraded themselves to animalistic, naturalistic, amorphous and semi-collectivist ways of life. What Landra has accurately described in these pages as ‘the race of the bourgeois’, of the petty conformist and right-thinking man, the ‘advanced’ spirit who invents a superiority for himself on the basis of rhetoric, empty speculations and exquisite aestheticisms; the pacifist, the social climber, the neutralist humanitarian, all this half-extinguished material of which so significant a part of the modern world is made up, is actually a product of racial degeneration, the expression of the deep crisis of the Man of the West, all the more tragic as it is not even felt as such."
• 
  Bas

  "It can be noticed that one of the main causes of the crisis of Western civilisation lies in a paralysing dilemma, constituted, on the one hand, by a weak, abstract, or conventionally devotional spirituality, rich in moralistic and humanitarian implications; and, on the other hand, by a paroxysmal development of action of all sorts, but in a materialistic and nearly barbaric sense.
  
  This situation has remote causes. Psychology teaches us that, in the subconscious, inhibition often transforms energies repressed and rejected into causes of disease and hysteria. The ancient traditions of the Aryan races were essentially characterised by the ideal of action: they were paralysed and partially suffocated by the advent of Christianity, which, in its original forms, and not without relation to elements derived from non-Aryan races, shifted the emphasis of spirituality from the domain of action to that of contemplation, devotion and monastic asceticism.
  
  Catholicism, it is true, often tried to rebuild the smashed bridge – and here, in discussing the spirit of the Crusades, we have already seen an example of this attempt. However, the antithesis between passive spirituality and unspiritual activity has continued to weigh on the destinies of Western man and recently it has taken the form of a paroxysmal development of all sorts of action in the already stated sense of action on the material plane, which, even when it leads to realisations of unquestionable greatness, is deprived of every transcendent point of reference.
  
  Given these conditions the advantages of the resumption of a tradition of action which is once again charged with spirit – adapted, naturally, to the times – justified not only by the immediate necessities of a particular historical situation, but by a transcendent vocation – should be clear to all. If beyond the re-integration and defence of the race of the body we must proceed to the rediscovery of values able to purify the race of the spirit of Aryan humanity from every heterogeneous element, and to lead to its steady development, we think that a new, living understanding of teachings and of ideals such as those briefly recalled here is a fitting task for us to undertake." P.42
• 
  Juan Gallardo Ivanovic

  Very academically research for not for everyone. It dwells too much in the figure on the traditional heroism vs modern materialism. For me it was repetitive and it was not fruitful as I though reading the summary.
  A hidden gem lays within this book but I may not be one who will discover it.a
• 
  Mason Masters

  Eh, interesting enough.
• 
  Grant Houtary

  Absolutely fascinating, you won't find any worldview quite like Evola's around anywhere. While at times rather severe and fundamentally anti-egalitarian there is still much to be learned from this text.
• 
  Ravi Singh

  An excellent treatise on war as a holy act rather than an extension of political tactics and how we as a society over many nations have divorced ourselves from high standards, values and outlook in life to stop the degeneracy and slide in standards we are suffering from under the guise of Globalisation.
  Evola intertwines the philosophy and theology of Vedic Indian philosophy, Roman, Greek and Scandinavia to provide a well rounded view.
  Of course there is the genesis of this work and the author in those who first gave him a platform, the Italian Fascists and then the German Nazi regime, however, do not be put off as Evola actually spoke out against them saying the right mindset to war cannot be limited to or championed by race genetics alone. This was enough to have him quietly shelved.
  Do not fall for the clickbait telling you Evola was a Nazi or a fascist, he was not. I also know discussing ideas freely in these times is looked down upon by the Leftwing rightwing who have venting space on social media, but real ideas grow through reading and reading widely, so please be like me, read more of Evola's work and then make up your mind.
  
  Essential reading in my humble opinion.
• 
  Paithan

  Listened to it as an audio book.
  
  Very good. Great perspective on Lesser Jihad and Greater Jihad, that is respectively the Material War and the Inner Spiritual War. Succeeding in war is done by overcoming the animal instinct to flee or hide, to rise to a higher level of consciousness in the danger. This was the attitude of Christian and Islamic knights during the Crusades.
  
  Ancient Indo-Aryan warriors viewed themselves as the gods or the champions of the gods when they went off to war. The enemy were giants or demons. The conflict was the cosmic conflict made manifest in the world. Victory meant an earthly kingdom. Death meant a spiritual kingdom.
  
  How does this manifest in modern life? Think of yourself as a warrior handpicked by God. He only throws the worse at you because you are his best. He wants you to succeed but in order to do that you need to conquer the inner animal that wants to sleep in, get drunk or goof off all day.
  
  Would recommend.
• 
  Syed Emir

  A series of essays defending the conception of the warrior ethic within a traditional hierarchy - in opposition to what the author deems as the inverted hierarchy of the materialistic, modern world. An obviously esoteric, almost mystical work - the Metaphysics of War stands in marked contrast to Huntington’s more corporeal ‘The Soldier and the State’.
  
  Some ideas were obviously written for a different audience, especially those that speak of race. I don’t agree with many of these racial analyses in particular, although I did find it interesting.
  
  It takes a certain level of concentration to truly understand some of these essays, considering Evola’s wordy and intellectual style. All that being said, there are some real gems in here and these essays will be appreciated by the traditionalist.
• 
  Irene Algeciras

  Voy a empezar aclarando una cosa y es que les recomiendo a los lectores en español darle una oportunidad a la versión simplificada de este título (no es difícil de encontrar). Es una buena forma de adquirir todos los conceptos clave que se tratan en el libro. Personalmente me he quedado satisfecha.
  
  Por lo general me ha gustado pero algo está claro, no es fácil de leer. El lenguaje que Julius Evola utiliza es complejo, así como es típico de encontrar en libros filosóficos por lo general. Pero me parece necesario a la hora de tener conocimientos sobre la guerra, así como las distintas perspectivas que se tienen sobre ella. Te guste o no, demuestra su realidad.
• 
  Norman Bennett Jr.

  Julius Evola is a brilliant voice of the perennial school of philosophy and metaphysics. This beautiful books lays out one of the traditional paths to enlightenment and service of the ideal. In this book, Evola explores the metaphysical and spiritual nature of war itself, and how struggle and warfare offers one of the greatest opportunities to experience and engage in the self-denial and self-sacrifice which frees one from self, and opens a portal to the Divine.
• 
  Fearless Leader

  A collection of essays on war by Julius Evola. They get a bit repetitive at times as many concepts are repeated several times between essays. However, you do get a glimpse at how Evola viewed the progress of the second world war, and for that it might have some value. At one point he talks boldly about the new Europe they (the axis) would create after the war, and later descends into a morbid fatalism about European man.
• 
  Jamie

  Ignoring the anti-semitism of the author, this book has a lot of value regarding the current crisis of meaning in the west, a brief criticism of bourgeois capitalism from a non-communist perspective, and what solutions can be offered (Evola being a "super fascist" or traditionalist, recommending the return to a Roman / Indo-European spiritualised warrior culture where heroism was central, rather than comfort).
• 
  Joshua

  Evola is a constant joy to read and presents ideas to play around with. These ideas are typically not discussed in new age philosophy books, so a book on metaphysics with masculine ideas is quite valuable. Well written, and an excellent translation of the original Italian work.
• 
  Jack Meyer

  prepare to force yourself to finish it, lol it's tough.
  
  All the right ideas.. Pretty difficult to read/understand some specifics, but easy to grasp the main concepts and purpose for his writing and I agree with his ideas.
• 
  Ossian's Dream

  Plenty of gems of insight that will stick with me to my dying day. Also a massive amount of fascist craziness and repetition. Worth reading over one more pen in hand and then discarded.
• 
  Paul

  Very little of substance to say and mostly argued through repetition. In essence, uncritical praise of the warrior.
• 
  Hande Allen

  4.5/5
  Evola'nın Napolyon gibi bir savaş dahisi olduğunun somut kanıtıdır bu.
• 
  Oolalaa

  7/20
• 
  Can

  Türkseniz bilmediğiniz bir şey yok. :^)
• 
  Aden2g

  Based