Symbolic Logics of Violence: Theravāda Dialetheism and the Analytic Self-Refutation of Julius Evola’s Metaphysics of War

Militant extremist philosopher Julius Evola (1898–1974) serves as an intellectual cornerstone for contemporary European fascists, with his occult metaphysics—arguably more than his political philosophy—drawing the most attention from his modern followers. Today, Evola’s works are invoked not only as political treatises but as blueprints for a hierarchical, racialized spirituality that seeks transcendence through fixed essences of race and identity. Evola claims that Theravāda Buddhism supports this racial metaphysical framework, presenting it as a perfected embodiment of “Aryan” spiritual principles. Yet Evola neither refutes nor attempts to modify Theravāda doctrines. Rather, he affirms their metaphysical validity, adopting Theravāda Buddhism as an authoritative structure within his own system. Ironically, this very adoption exposes the internal collapse of his philosophical project.

This paper offers a formal symbolic logic analysis of Evola’s occult metaphysics using paraconsistent reasoning and modal fictionalism, modeled on accessible hypothetical worlds governed by Theravāda metaphysics. These logical tools are employed not to render Buddhist metaphysics as fictional, but to rigorously test the consistency of Evola’s claims by exploring the space of possible worlds in which Theravāda doctrines hold. By mapping Evola's racial-spiritual hierarchy into these worlds, I demonstrate that his system generates unavoidable contradictions, rendering his philosophical project internally incoherent on its own terms.

The proof is grounded in 26 modal premises that formalize core doctrines of Theravāda Buddhism, including self-dissolution (attano nirodho), non-attachment, and the universal accessibility of Nirvana. These premises define the structural conditions of hypothetical worlds in which Theravāda metaphysics governs. Evola's metaphysics, predicated on racial essence, spiritual hierarchy, self-deification, and the accumulation of personal power, is introduced into these worlds and shown to collapse under logical scrutiny. Each contradiction arises not from external critique but from within Evola’s own attempt to reconcile racial metaphysics with the teachings of Theravāda Buddhism.

In applying this framework, I build upon recent scholarship by Jay Garfield and Graham Priest regarding dialetheism and Buddhist logic. Their research shows how dialetheic systems—in which contradictions can be true without collapsing into triviality—offer deep insights into Buddhist philosophical structures, particularly Nāgārjuna’s catușkoți and its handling of mutually contradictory truths. In particular, their work suggests that contradictions are not merely logical errors to be corrected but are instead revealing of the limitations and paradoxes within certain metaphysical commitments.

This insight is crucial to understanding the contradictions within Evola’s system. Evola’s simultaneous affirmation of traditional Theravāda metaphysics and of Aryan racial-spiritual supremacy generates structural contradictions across four key domains:

1. Self-Dissolution and Racial Essence:
   Theravāda metaphysics requires an entity’s (x) self-dissolution (S(x)) for the attainment of Nirvana (N(x)). Evola’s racial metaphysics, by contrast, is predicated on the permanence of racial essence (R(x)) as a fixed, indivisible core of identity. When placed within a hypothetical world governed by Theravāda metaphysics, these two commitments directly contradict each other. In formal terms, Evola’s claim that Theravāda Buddhism validates his racial metaphysics generates a contradiction.
2. Non-Attachment and Personal Power:
   Non-attachment (NA(x)) is fundamental to Theravāda practice. Evola’s metaphysics, however, valorizes the pursuit of personal power (P(x)) as a spiritual good. In any world governed by Theravāda metaphysics, the pursuit of personal power precludes non-attachment and, therefore, Nirvana. Thus, Evola’s metaphysical ambitions collapse under Theravāda principles.
3. Self-Deification and Nirvana:
   Evola’s spiritual hierarchy culminates in self-deification (SD(x)), a concept fundamentally incompatible with the Theravāda ideal of self-dissolution. In hypothetical Theravādan worlds, self-deification cannot coexist with Nirvana. Evola’s metaphysics thus demands the impossible: a self both annihilated and exalted.
4. Racial Hierarchy and Universal Liberation:
   Theravāda metaphysics insists on the universal accessibility of Nirvana to all beings, irrespective of social or racial identity (r). Evola’s racial metaphysics, which establishes hierarchical access to spiritual realization based on particular racial identity (r¢), is logically excluded from any world in which Theravāda doctrines hold. his produces a contradiction at the core of his metaphysical project.

By adopting paraconsistent logic, this proof does not dismiss these contradictions as fatal errors leading to triviality (as classical logic would). Instead, paraconsistency allows these contradictions to be tracked, managed, and analyzed, revealing the specific points at which Evola’s system collapses under its own commitments. Modal fictionalism enables the modeling of these contradictions across accessible hypothetical worlds, without making ontological claims about the reality of the metaphysics in question. This method respects the integrity of Theravāda doctrines while rigorously testing the compatibility of Evola’s assertions within these worlds.

Ultimately, Evola faces a forced choice: either deny the validity of Theravāda metaphysics (which he does not do) or accept that his racial metaphysics is internally incoherent. Because Evola affirms Theravāda metaphysics as metaphysically valid, he is left with no logical ground on which to maintain his racial-spiritual hierarchy. In symbolic logic terms, the system refutes itself. This can be seen in the following sequent calculi where □_w denotes necessity across all hypothetical worlds governed by Theravāda metaphysics.
 

Contradiction 1:
□_w(∀x (RE(x)∧N(x)) ⊢ (S(x)∧¬S(x))) ⊨ ⊥

Contradiction 2:
□_w(∀x (NA(x)∧P(x)) ⊢ (¬N(x)∧N(x))) ⊨ ⊥

Contradiction 3:
□_w​(∀x(SD(x)∧N(x)) ⊢ (S(x)∧¬S(x))) ⊨ ⊥

Contradiction 4:

□_w(∀x (RE(x)∧N(x)) ⊢ (∀r∀r′ (¬SS(r,r′)∧SS(r,r′)))) ⊨ ⊥

By extending Priest’s insights into dialetheism and Buddhist logic, this paper demonstrates how symbolic logic and modal analysis can dismantle modern fascist metaphysical systems from within, using the very frameworks these systems claim to uphold. Evola’s appropriation of Theravāda Buddhism thus not only fails to provide the foundation for an Aryan metaphysics but triggers its logical implosion, even when the assumptions of Evola’s own philosophical system are held as hypothetically true.

This project thus operates at the intersection of symbolic logic, Buddhist philosophy, and the metaphysics of violence, showing how rigorous formal methods can expose the contradictions underlying extremist thought. It moves scholarship forward in three ways: by reshaping the discourse surrounding Evolian philosophical appropriation of Buddhism; by illustrating the analytic value of employing non-classical logics and logical pluralism to political, ethical, and metaphysical inquiry; and by demonstrating the anti-fascist philosophical potential of Nāgārjuna’s catușkoți.