I was already familiar with a lot of the ideas here but it did put them in a powerful context.

I was recommended Revolt with the idea that it's actually a lot more approachable (especially the second half) than one would think and I'd definitely agree.

Passages like Evola's criticism of modern slavery as being materialistic and barbarous, along with his recognition that if there were true Traditional men women would feel no need for their liberation is far better optics and attractive for newcomers than how his fallacious Wikipedia page describes him.

I think he builds a phenomenal foundation for a metaphysical opposition to modernity, as opposed to an empirical or purely aesthetic position. I can also see how smoothly Evola flows from Nietzsche, sort of a structuralizing of Nietzsche's thought into religious and traditional terms.

The differences I'd have with Evola would be in his ontology and some of the conclusions he reaches from it. He privileges being over becoming, siding with Parmenidies over Heraclitus. Though I'm not fully decided myself, I tend to lean toward process thought. I think the temporarily of becoming lends itself to a sort of Bergsonian vitalism which I'm increasingly interested in. Evola seemed to distinguish himself from the sort of mythic vitalism which would lead toward Sorelian violence expressed in Mishima and Pearse.

I think on that foundational level Evola fails to confront modernity. I've heard his critiques before of Yockey and Spengler are all based on a lack of 'metaphysical' thinking enough to satisfy him. Though I'm in agreement that Spengler can be quite atheistic, I think Evola is stuck in a sort of regression toward some ancient becoming, whereas to truly respond to modernity I think there needs to be at once an acceptance of its current hegemony and then a vitalistic response (as opposed to a conservative one).