Please note the word "trainer" by the chief's hand. It's not a real rocket launcher.

If the Tea Party really is anti-Pagan, then that alone is a sign that it has nothing to do with the European New Right, given that many of the main figures of the European New RIght, most importantly perhaps Alain De Benoist, are avowedly Pagan.

The European New Right is anti-bourgeois while the Tea Party seems to appeal primarily to the bourgeoisie. The Tea Party is at least economically libertarian, while the European New Right is not. The Tea Party refers back to the ideas of several of the founders of the US while the European New Right tends to despise the US. I could go on. The two movements are ideologically quite disparate and do not have any kind of genetic relationship.

What does this have to do with Cara's statement that the Tea Party is not part of the European New Right?

No.

If your definition of Fascist is "anyone who is neither a democrat nor a leftist," as it seems to be for many Europeans and leftists, then I suppose Evola is a Fascist, but then identifying someone as a Fascist does not mean much.

Being listed by someone as a source hardly indicates that that person is an adherent of the ideology in question. If that principle held, Schopenhauer would be a Nazi, Martin Luther King Jr. a Glenn Beck fan, Jack London a supporter of White Aryan Resistance, and Aleister Crowley a National Anarchist.

In any case, although I continue to agree with Apuleius that Evola was an outsider who was trying to push Fascism in his own direction, none of this has any relevance to my initial point, which was that when writing on certain esoteric topics, Evola was really quite brilliant, and I'll add he writes about these things in a way that is unmatched anywhere and the value of which is completely independent of his politics.

It's fun quoting things out of context, thus making things look more black and white than they really are. Here's a little context from Men Among the Ruins, p 121:

"I will end this series of considerations with a particular application for them. Since, as I have said, Italy lacks an authentic "traditional" past, there are some who, in their attempt to organize themselves against the avant-garde of world subversion, and in order to claim some concrete and historical basis, have found a reference point in the principles and institutions of the Fascist era."

[what Eran Rathan quoted immediately follows, then Evola continues as follows]

"To cherish these ideas not according to this spirit, but solely because they are "revolutionary," original, and proper only to Fascism, would amount to belittling them, adopting a limiting perspective, and making difficult a much needed task of clarification. To those for whom everything begins and ends with Fascism, including those whose political horizons are defined by the mere polemics between Fascism and antifascism and who have no other reference point beside these two poles - these people would hardly be able to distinguish the best potential of the Italian world of the past from some of its aspects that were affected by the same evils that it is necessary to fight against today."

The point, if you would bother to read, is clearly that in his opinion there were some aspects of Fascism that were good, but that Fascism itself is not good, that these ideas do not gain their value from the association with Fascism but that what value Fascism had came from these values, not the reverse. This already makes him something different from a real Fascist, for whom there is "Nothing above the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." For Evola, Traditional priniples are clearly "Above the state" and, if the state fails to live up to them, as Evola thought the Fascist state did to large degree, then they are clearly outside the state and Evola's position with regard to the state much be against the state.

Calling Evola a Fascist is like calling Obama a socialist. There are some points of commonality and overlap, but there are enough differences that neither monicker is appropriate.

As for your second quote, it is clear your characterization is unfair if you read the previous paragraph, which I am not going to quote because I feel I've typed enough on this.

As for his work with the SS (specifically studying Freemasonry under the auspices of the SS Ahnenerbe), in his own words, "As a foreigner in an allied country, I enjoyed a kind of immunity: I could say things which would have been more or less unacceptable for a German to say under Nazi rule, and which would possibly have caused him to be interned in a concentration camp. I argued in favour of the rectification of the political movement that had recently come to power, of the strengthening of its positive aspects and the curbing of its negative traits." (The Path of Cinnabar, p. 154). He mentions the Nazi ideology of rule by an elite as the positive, and Nazi racism as a negative trait needing addressing. Working on Freemasonry in some obscure corner of the Ahnenerbe is hardly the center of Nazi power, and his criticisms of the regime (and one of the central doctrines of National Socialist ideology) hardly makes him a good Nazi. He still may not be someone whose politics we want to imitate, but to merely write him off as "a Nazi" or "a Fascist" without another word obscures the truth of the matter.

No one is objective, as much as scholars might like to pretend otherwise. The point is not whether they are objective. The point is that they are "important contemporary esoteric scholars" and they recognize the value of Evola's work.

He doesn't say he should have more money than anybody, since he thinks the money economy and its replacement of any sense of true human value by the idea of monetary value is a result of the regression of the castes and, thus, a symptom of our degenerate age and by no means something to be encouraged. His idea of race is also much more complex than having to do with mere skin color, as his respect for Islamic and Indian traditional ideas should indicate. In any case, you shouldn't just accept what any author says about anything. You should read things critically, as I would hope you were already aware. Are there authors whose words you just trust without evaluating them critically?

Perhaps because he also wrote some pretty brilliant books about Hermeticism, Yoga, Buddhism, and numerous other topics.

That depends upon your definition. He often wrote critically about the Fascist movement in Italy. Notably, he argued against the biological racism adopted by the Fascists in the 1930's (previously the Fascists had not been officially racist). When he was in Germany during the war the SS kept a dossier on him claiming he was "a reactionary Roman," which meant in their terms he was aristocratically minded and thus anti-Nazi (National Socialism being a mass movement that, among other things, was for the abolition of class differences).

However, he did attempt to work within the system of Fascist Italy and, when that failed, Nazi Germany to influence things in a direction he considered traditional. Traditional in this case means plenty of things people reading this web site probably won't like (anti-modernism, anti-egalitarianism, anti-feminism, anti-pacifism, etc.) but he only is really a Fascist in a very loose sense, and all of his attempts to influence Fascist or Nazi politics failed pretty spectacularly.