Evola was the chief proponent of a little-known philosophical doctrine known as Traditionalism. When reading _Revolt_, however, you don't ever get a definition of what Traditionalism actually _is_. Rather, Evola draws upon his encyclopedic knowledge of ancient history and mythology to show how Traditional societies manifested themselves - most effectively in ancient Indo-Aryan society and its four-tier caste system - in their taking for granted the existence of a divine order. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary here, and this book will appeal to anyone interested in history, anthropology, sociology, or esoterica. By refusing to define exactly how this divine order should manifest itself in the realm of the social, Evola pulls no punches. Rather, he shows how the Divine (taken for granted) _did_ manifest itself in the social. Traditional man, he says, was aware of the existence of the Divine and his social institutions and mode of life reflected this larger, grander element of human existence. By the end of the first half of the book he's shown so many examples of how such Traditional societies were ordered that it almost becomes a bit tiresome, but when examining such disparate groups - ancient Greeks, Incans, Chinese, and Indians - it's hard to not be convinced that they all shared some extraordinary commonalities. Extrapolating these commonalities will allow you to deduce a semblance of Divine order from which they emanate.
To Evola's Traditional man, everything in his environment reflected a higher transcendtal order. As a corollary to that, modern "mass man" views nature, history, and his own self and actions as aberrations having no inherent purpose whatsoever. Modernism is not any sort of "progression" from a primitive supernatural worldview but rather a mindset only possible in a very ephemeral point of the four-stage cycle of Hindu cosmology (Kali Yuga) or the Ragnarok of Norse mythology.
By refusing to apologize for its operating paradigm the writing is more brisk and refreshing, as it does not have to offer apologies to modernism or anti-spiritualism on every page. It does occasionally bog down into polemics; Evola takes stabs at all sorts of modern ailments (or his perception thereof) - feminism, egalitarianism, consumerism, and the like, but doesn't offer any sort of prescription for any of it. It's all a part of the cycles. Needless to say, this book isn't going to sit well with Marxists! However, it won't sit well with armchair fascists either, at least those with the brains to really understand what he's saying (if they even exist). Evola _is_ very careful, when making assertions about the correct role of women and men and races of people, to show how all talk of say, the proper role of the sexes is meaningless without a direct living experience of transcendental order on the part of all society memebers. This will undoubtedly strike a nerve with many of us, who have long felt that there is just something that isn't "right" about modern existence and do not feel the need to rationalize the existence of God. When understanding Evola's notion of races, for example, Evola clarifies how the "strictly biological" interpretation of races of men is limiting, a decadent product of modernity. He views a "race" of individuals more as a group that embodies a particular spirit or life force. In this sense, he echoes the "root race" concept that has been well expounded upon in esoteric literature, especially Theosophy. However, viewing everything as a Divine emanation is impossible for most modern men - even those with an open mind can probably not implicitly "understand" it. Keep this in mind when reading Evola.
From a historical perspective, it's important to realize that at the time of his writing the appeal of fascist philosophy seemed to offer some sort of return to Traditional principles, but when one examines Evola's disenchantment with fascism, it becomes clear that he was certainly not a fascist. At the time of writing, radical egalitarianism in the form of Communism was a very real threat in terms of wiping out every notion of culture. Given this, it's no more surprising that some prominent intellectuals sided with Fascist movements. This is open to criticism, but think of how many prominent intellectuals were socialists or communists. History had not yet made it apparent that both of these movements were inherently just totalitarian. I don't believe that Evola's brief involvement with Mussolini invalidates his work; his change in status to that of an "enemy" by the fascist parties in Germany and Italy should attribute a degree of honesty to his work. By the time of this book's writing, Evola does not seem to have any political agenda. He does not believe that a return to Traditional principles is possible. Rather, he's just interested in showing you how it "is". Jose Ortega y Gasset's "The Revolt of the Masses" and Fromm's "Escape from Freedom" are good companions to this book, as they both illustrate the dangers of corruption of the natural, or Traditional, order by mass movements and lowest common denominatorism. Whether or not you think Evola's caste systems and kingships remain the best solution to these problems, however, will probably still be a lot to swallow.
With that being said, you're not left with much after reading this book besides intellectual satiation. Like Oswald Spengler, Evola views "history" as the process of inexorable cyclical forces of waxing and waning. Truly, Traditional principles have a history of creating "successful" societies that Marxist ones do not, but a return to them is impossible for the time being. Whether the Kali Yuga prophecy plays out will remain to be seen, but at least you'll hit the ground running after reading this book.