no, evola would be against the anti-mussolini coup, who is initially led by a group of generals and politicians, and planned by the heir to the throne. after the coup another famous Italian writer and poet would be elected as president, Gabriele D'Annunzio
Electing Annuzio would be a return to the status quo, he is quite literally Mussolini's mentor and he died in '38.
On Evola
Fascism, National Socialism and Race
Despite later efforts to categorise Evola as a Fascist or National Socialist thinker, in reality ‘Official Fascism did not think highly of him’, while SS reports betray a distinct antipathy towards him. This is hardly surprising, considering the highly critical stance he adopted on a range of issues relevant to both the Fascist and National Socialist ideologies, not least that of race.
Benito Mussolini’s ascent to power was, to Evola's unapologetically aristocratic and monarchist perspective, inappropriate. Despite his sympathies for any who might stand against leftist and democratist forces, the Fascist revolution was, in a sense, a counterfeit one. It lacked any connection to a transcendent source of power. And though its early republican, ‘secular’ character was soon ameliorated through fusion with Italian bourgeois "nationalist infatuations", this also blunted whatever revolutionary potential it possessed.
For Evola the ‘true revolution’ - the one that ought to have taken place - was one “from above”, led by the sovereign himself. Still, it must be admitted that despite severe reservations, he did consider Mussolini's government as better than the alternative of liberal democracy or communism. His attitude to Fascism has been described as following the sequence of "first a great hope", then "the hope of making corrections of a traditional kind", then "a recognition that everything is lost", leading ultimately to
apoliteia.
Disillusionment with Fascism led Evola to see Germany's National Socialism as "much more consequential". However, even in this case, the absence of any transcendent background to NS was to lead to the criticism of core elements of NS ideology: the great attachment to nature, a Fuhrer principle that lacked any legitimation other than that of the people and, not insignificantly, its purely biological racism. As with Fascism, Evola's ideas were just too different from official National Socialist thought.
This difference is perhaps most stark in the area of race. Although Evola recognised that race was important, it was "hierarchically below the all-important primal ideas". The biological element was never enough for him: "In a cat or a thoroughbred horse the biological is the deciding element, and thus the racial observation can be restricted to this criterion. This, however, is no longer the case when dealing with humans, or at least with beings that are worthy of that name. Man is indeed a biological being, but also connected to forces and laws of a different kind, that are as real and effective as the biological realm and whose influence on the latter cannot be overlooked." This nuanced stance also conditioned his approach to questions surrounding Jewish identity, character and influence.
__
For the author, the ideas "expressed in
Revolt provided the foundation and yardstick for any kind of action: by shunning all compromises, illusions and pretences, the book pointed to those values never to be forgotten." Indeed, it is precisely due his to "shunning all compromises" on those ideas that Evola's relations with the Fascist and National Socialist governments were often tense - and occasionally hostile.