Fascism's "Trotsky": Julius Evola - 11 Points for Super-Fascism and the UberMensch

Why 11?  Why not 12 (Eschaton)?

Es·cha·ton

/ˈeskəˌtän/

noun

Theology

noun: eschaton

1. the final event in the divine plan; the end of the world.

   "the gift of eternal life at the eschaton"

from Wikipedia:


Orientamenti was a text against "national fascism"—instead, it advocated for a European Community modelled on the principles of the Waffen-SS, which had mustered international forces.[14][204] The Italian neo-fascist group Ordine Nuovo adopted Orientamenti as a guide for action in postwar Italy.[205] Evola praised Ordine Nouvo as the only Italian group that had "doctrinally had held firm without descending to compromise".[206] The European Liberation Front of Francis Parker Yockey called Evola "Italy's greatest living authoritarian philosopher" in the April 1951 issue of its publication Frontfighter.[14] Giuliano Salierni, who was an activist in the neo-Fascist Italian Social Movement during the early 1950s, later recalled Evola's calls to violence, along with Evola's reminiscences about Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels





Looking to Kalki and the Start of the Satya Yuga


Unfortunately...



Salvador Dali, "The Javanese Mannequin" (1934)

The Lady and the Tiger

Controlled Masculinity

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you"

Nietzsche, "Beyond Good & Evil #146" (1886)

Apoleia: from Google AI:

The precise meaning of apoleia varies depending on the context in which it is used. 

• Destruction or waste: It can refer to the physical act of destroying something or the wasteful squandering of resources. In the Gospel of Matthew, the disciples use the word in reference to the "waste" of expensive perfume.
• Temporal ruin: The word can describe ruin or loss in a temporal, earthly sense. For example, in Acts 8:20, the Apostle Peter tells Simon Magus, "May your silver perish with you," using the word apoleia.
• Eternal perdition: In the New Testament, apoleia is most often used to signify eternal destruction or perdition, contrasting with eternal life or salvation.
  • Matthew 7:13: The "broad way" is described as leading to apoleia ("destruction").
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:3: The Antichrist is referred to as the "son of apoleia" ("perdition").
  • John 17:12: Jesus describes Judas Iscariot as the "son of apoleia".
• Loss of well-being: Biblical scholars note that in the context of eternal judgment, apoleia does not necessarily mean "annihilation" or nonexistence. Instead, it refers to a "loss of well-being"—a state of being severed from God, a spiritual death.

When Ironic Distancing is no longer possible...

You no longer Ride, you become the Tiger!

Meden Agan!

Pinker on Social Coordination, Common Knowledge/ Common Pretense, and the Function of Signaling/ Establishing Power Relations (Law and Authority) between the Two.

Eye to Eye contact (body language) signals and establishes common knowledge necessary for coordination; a subordinate knowingly not looking into his Master's eyes establishes a common pretense (that the subordinate does not know and defers knowledge to the Master) or in China, hands in front or to the side signifies acceptance of subordinate roles, hands behind back with eye contact signals rejection of subordinate role The panopticon surveillance state of the Master signals his dominance.  The Master's Gaze demands the PC subordinate's routinized/ expected behaviour provided the Subjects cannot escape his gaze through Anonymity.  All are means of "coordination" of social relations.  Hence the need to signal status and then linguistically "coordinate" roles and responsibilities of Dominance, Communality, or Reciprocity.  Doubt in a subordinate triggers the thoughts necessary to linguistically circumvent the conventional power structure through "indirect" questioning language. A dominant person linguistically negotiating  a "communality or reciprocity" relationship requires a commonly understood rhetorical pretense (plausible deniability). Acta non verba.

Pamela B. Paresky Ph.D., "Steven Pinker Knows When No One Knows That Everyone Knows"

Common knowledge can fuel mobs, manias, or change regimes.

Key points

• Common knowledge is not just when everyone knows something. It’s when everyone knows that everyone knows.
• Common knowledge arises through repetition, salience, visible norms, and shared signals.
• Self-censorship, preference falsification, and pluralistic ignorance prevent common knowledge.
• Common knowledge coordinates behavior, whether for destroying reputations or toppling regimes.

Before boarding a flight to South Africa in 2013, Justine Sacco sent a sardonic joke to her 170 Twitter followers: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding—I’m white!” By the time her plane landed, she was the number-one trending topic worldwide, fired from her job, and branded a racist by millions of strangers.

What happened wasn’t simply outrage at bad humor. It was the sudden creation of “common knowledge.”

What Is Common Knowledge?

As Steven Pinker argues in his newest book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life, “It’s not enough that everyone knows something; it becomes common knowledge only when everyone knows that everyone knows it, and everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows it, and so on.”

That recursive certainty transforms diffuse awareness into coordinated action. And “the dynamic of punitive mobbing,” as Pinker notes, “is a recurrent vulnerability of human societies.”

“The leap is not from ignorance to knowledge,” Pinker explains, “but from private knowledge to common knowledge.” In other words, from what everyone knows but everyone doesn’t know that everyone knows it, to what everyone knows that everyone knows.

The former is often marked by self-censoring, preference falsification and pluralistic ignorance. Self-censoring happens when fear of speaking freely results in staying silent. Preference falsification is professing to hold opinions one doesn’t hold out of fear of repercussions. Pluralistic ignorance, Pinker explains, is “when people misinterpret others’ public conformity as private conviction, and so each mistakenly thinks they are alone in their doubts.”

In other words, when everyone knows something but no one knows that everyone knows, it breeds distortion. Pinker notes, for example, that many college students drink more than they would like, assuming that it’s what their peers want. What they don’t know is that many others are also merely going along. They all mistake each other's compliance for enthusiasm. The result is a widely disliked norm sustained by the false belief that everyone else endorses it.

The Emperor's New Clothes

The most familiar example of the difference between “what everyone knows” and “common knowledge” comes from the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes: A vain emperor is tricked by swindlers who claim to make beautiful clothes from cloth that only the intelligent can see. Not wanting to appear stupid, he and his ministers pretend to see the nonexistent garments (preference falsification), and when the emperor parades nude through the city, his subjects, not knowing whether others can see something they can’t, keep silent about his nakedness (they self-censor). Eventually, a child blurts out the obvious truth.

“When the little boy said the emperor was naked,” Pinker elaborates in a recent TED Talk, “he wasn’t telling them anything that they didn’t already know.” Nonetheless, he created the condition for everyone to know that everyone else knew, too. In that instant, the illusion—the pluralistic ignorance—collapsed into common knowledge.

Common knowledge doesn’t always come from dramatic moments, however. Pinker notes it can also build more gradually, through repetition, salience, visible norms, and incremental disclosures. National anthems before a sporting event, for example, everyone standing for a minute of silence, and a universally recognized symbol like the peace sign, each creates the sense that “we all know this, and we all know that we all know it.” That allows people to coordinate their behavior.

Manias and Mistrust

Lionel Shriver’s newest book, Mania: A novel, dramatizes the power of suppressing common knowledge. Set in an alternate reality dominated by a campaign called the “Mental Parity Movement,” the government enforces the view that intelligence differences do not exist. Terms like “stupid,” “dumb,” and “idiot” are illegal. TV shows like The Big Bang Theory, which imply that intelligence is admirable, are canceled. Any test that could illustrate cognitive differences is banned.

The protagonist, Pearson Converse, opposes the Mental Parity orthodoxy, but when she refuses to engage in self-censorship and preference falsification, the result is personal and professional ruin. Shriver’s chilling story illustrates how, without common knowledge, one person’s public dissent is easily crushed, even when the consensus is broad.

Common knowledge was why, in Communist Czechoslovakia, a man was arrested for distributing pamphlets that were completely blank. “Everyone knew what they meant,” Pinker tells us: “Everyone hates the system but no one can say so.” The power of that demonstration came from common knowledge. And the heavy-handed response was an attempt to repress it.

Courage and Coordination

A deciding factor in whether common knowledge forms is whether too many people are afraid to reveal what they really think. What enabled the collapse of communism was the willingness to risk the consequences of speaking freely. As people began to understand that there were more like-minded others than they’d thought, they signaled to others with small, symbolic acts, like wearing jeans (as a symbol of the West) or sharing Samizdat (self-published dissident literature).

When self-censorship, preference falsification, and pluralistic ignorance were supplanted by common knowledge, the illusion was shattered and the communist system was dismantled.

For good or for ill, common knowledge allows us to coordinate our behavior. This makes common knowledge both dangerous and indispensable. Outrage mobs form when condemnation becomes visible, but they are swiftly dispensed with when enough people have the courage to defend the accused. And the same recursive awareness that destroyed Justine Sacco’s reputation also toppled communist regimes.

Which way the world tilts sometimes depends on whether enough people are willing to publicly say what everyone knows.

References

1. Pinker, S. (2025). When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows...: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Scribner.
2. Steven Pinker's 2025 TED Talk
3. Shriver, L. (2024). Mania: A novel. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

On the Epistemological Nature of Recursively Infinite Thoughts (aka- Common Knowledge) which Establish and Maintain All Social Relationships

Law of Social Entropy: Human Activity Seeks its' Lowest Possible Energy State.  Coordination of Activities thru Social Norms Will Start to Unravel the Moment People Know that the Norms can be Broken and Violators will NOT be Publicly Shamed.  Power Must therefore Always Effect a Pretense of Plausible Deniability when NOT Enforcing Social Norms, or it Surrenders it's own Authority along with the Established Norm.  Translation - Might Makes Right just so long as it Seems to be Publicly Enforcing those Rights

(aka - Likely "why" the Left resorted to "Lawfare" against Norm-violator Trump... to maintain the Post-WWII "International Rules-based Order/ Consensus" pretense)

---

"To what extent can truth endure incorporation? That is the question; that is the experiment."

- Nietzsche- "The Gay Science"  (#110)  (1882).

Staring, Glaring, Blushing, Laughter, and Crying - Non-Verbal Common Knowledge Signifiers.

Social Coordination Absent "Common Knowledge"

Shhhhhhhhh! How Democracy Became a Myth.

Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so is he.

Publilius Syrus

Loss of Identity. Sincerity Abandoned. The Hikikomori Withdraws. The Search for Authenticity/ Profilicity Begins... and the Waiting for Godot.

Wandering... Alienated... Powerless... Doomscrollers... Flaneurs... Ronin,... Actors... Schizophrenics... Escapists... Dreamers... Trying on the Next Role (Trans)... Identity FOMO... Suspending disbelief and drowning in an endless stream of mass or indie media supplied entertainments not wanting to embrace one's own existential reality/ belief.  Living the Interpassive "life".

Eschatology/ Eschatonology:

"the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind."

Eschatological Nihilism

Wander - Wonder - Oneder - Wonder-filling - Weir Wonder-fulling!

Collecting, Curating/ Selecting/ Refining/ Improving/ Making the Ordinary Exceptional , and thereby Altering the Wyrd-Weirding Ways of Personality and Fate through Profilicity.  Constructing our Digital Outward facing Avatar/ Daimon.

from Google AI:

Wyrd is an Anglo-Saxon and Germanic concept referring to fate or personal destiny, a force that shapes events in the universe and in individual lives. The modern English word "weird" is a direct descendant, though its meaning has evolved from connotations of the supernatural to a more general sense of strangeness or the uncanny. Wyrd is distinct from the more mechanical or deterministic "inexorable fate" of the ancient Greeks, instead emphasizing "that which happens" or a continuous process of becoming.

On Michel Foucault's Disciplinary Apparatuses

In Medias Res - The Confusion and Inversion of Cause and Effect in Multiplicity Producing False Epistemological Universality (aka "Normality")

Which Authorities control your permission structure and determine "Normality"? And how can you become an authority for somebody else's permission structure?

Kafka's Guardian Before the Law at the Center of the Panopticon

The Big Tech Law Avoidant Digital Eye of Sauron

Tech: The Prime Social Change Habituating Code Overwriting Institutions & the Law

Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. A Society of Control denies the possibility of Negative Liberty.

Negative Liberty Violated

“There is little need to stress the fact that monism, and faith in a single criterion, has always proved a deep source of satisfaction both to the intellect and to the emotions. [...] Pluralism, with the measure of 'negative' liberty that it entails, seems to me a truer and more humane ideal [...]. It is truer, because it does, at least, recognise the fact that human goals are many, not all of them conmensurable, and in perpetual rivalry with one another. To assume that all values can be graded on one scale, so that it is a mere matter of inspection to determine the highest, seems to me to falsify our knowledge that men are free agents, to represent moral decision as an operation which a slide-rule could, in principle, perform. [...] 'To realise the relative validity of one's convictions', said an admirable writer of our time, 'and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.' To demand more than this is perhaps a deep and incurable metaphysical need; but to allow it to determine one's practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity.”

― Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958

 Do You Have a Constitutional Right as a Normal US Citizen to be Atypical/ Abnormal?

“I wish my life and decisions to depend on myself, not on external forces of whatever kind. I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other men's, acts of will. I wish to be a subject, not an object; to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes, which are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were, from outside. I wish to be somebody, not nobody; a doer - deciding, not being decided for, self-directed and not acted upon by external nature or by other men as if I were a thing, or an animal, or a slave incapable of playing a human role, that is, of conceiving goals and policies of my own and realising them. This is at least part of what I mean when I say that I am rational, and that it is my reason that distinguishes me as a human being from the rest of the world. I wish, above all. to be conscious of myself as a thinking, willing, active being, bearing responsibility for my choices and able to explain them by reference to my own ideas and purposes. I feel free to the degree that I believe this to be true, and enslaved to the degree that I am made to realise that it is not.”

― Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958

Peter Thiel's Approaching Eschaton

Angel Au-Yeung, "Peter Thiel Wants Everyone to Think More About the Antichrist"

During appearances, the billionaire has offered his analysis on technology, government and a biblical perspective on the end times

Peter Thiel, the billionaire investor in data, AI, defense and weapons development technology companies, wants everyone to think more about the end of the world.

For about a year now, Thiel has been publicly laying out his understanding of biblical prophecies and the potential for the rapid advance of technology to bring about an apocalyptic future.

In a lecture Monday, he encouraged an audience to continue working toward scientific progress, whether in artificial intelligence or other forms of technology. Fearing or regulating it, or opposing technological progress, would hasten the coming of the Antichrist, Thiel said, according to people who attended.

A devout Christian, Thiel is expanding on a number of speeches and public interviews he has given about the Antichrist in a closed, four-part lecture series this month in San Francisco. The second lecture happened on Monday, and the series will end in early October.

He is among a number of Silicon Valley figures who have recently spoken more openly about their faith, a contrast to the cultural milieu of the epicenter of the tech world, which is mostly secular.

This is how Thiel says the end of the world might happen, according to a Wall Street Journal review of his recent lectures. Existential risks will present themselves in the form of nuclear war, environmental disaster, dangerously engineered bioweapons and even autonomous killer robots guided by AI.

As humans race toward a last battle—the Armageddon—a one-world government will form, promising peace and safety. In Thiel’s reckoning, this totalitarian authoritarian regime, with real teeth and real power, will be the coming of the modern-day Antichrist, a figure defined in Christian teachings as the personal opponent of God who will appear before the world ends.

Not ‘defeatist’

The point of these talks is “not to be defeatist,” Thiel said last October in an interview series produced by the Hoover Institution. In driving people to think more about the Armageddon or the Antichrist, his hope is that human society can find a third way and avoid both outcomes. “I think the biblical language, it sounds crazier, but it’s actually more hopeful,” he said.

The AI arms race gripping Silicon Valley has prompted more spiritual reflection by many tech luminaries, including those who have called for Christian concepts to inform the advance of the technology. Pope Leo XIV has begun to speak about the threats posed by AI, even choosing his papal name in a nod to technological revolution in the past.

“In the last two years, with AI, it definitely feels like we’ve unleashed more of a high-stakes conversation on all fronts,” said Jonathan Gundlach, an ordained minister and attorney who is attending the lecture series and counts tech workers among his parishioners. “There’s a heightened sense of spirituality because it feels like we’re dealing with a new form of being that has infinite potential. It’s kind of like a God,” said Gundlach. He said Thiel occasionally attended a church where Gundlach was formerly a minister.

Former Intel Chief Executive Pat Gelsinger gave a lecture this summer about his Christianity. Garry Tan, chief executive of startup incubator Y Combinator, also has hosted fireside chats discussing how religion fits in with science and technology. Elon Musk, who has extolled the virtues of Christianity in recent public remarks, quoted from a scripture in the New Testament Sunday on X.

According to a review of his past lectures, Thiel draws on a theory that the Antichrist could be an individual or entity that is incredibly charismatic but talks repeatedly about the end of the world, thereby convincing society to give it the power needed to regulate the existential risks from science and technology.

Jay Kim, the lead pastor at WestGate Church in the Bay Area, who has had a front-row seat to the new attention to Christianity emerging in Silicon Valley, said Thiel’s focus on the Antichrist is misplaced.

“My best understanding is that the New Testament writers focus very little, if at all, on pointing followers of Jesus towards spending their energy on accurately identifying the Antichrist,” he said. “To give all your energy into thinking about all that, to me, feels like a pretty futile endeavor.”

Thiel’s speaker series is hosted by ACTS 17, a San Francisco-based nonprofit co-founded by Michelle Stephens, an executive at a healthcare software startup. Her husband is Trae Stephens, an investor at Thiel’s venture firm, Founders Fund and co-founder of Anduril Industries, one of the few privately held tech companies to land contracts with the Defense Department. The couple does Bible study with Thiel, she said.

In an interview, Michelle Stephens said she started ACTS 17 in part because of the questions she and her husband faced as practicing Christians working in tech. “Trae was building his own tech company and really facing hostility around what he was building, why he was building unmanned defense systems with Anduril,” she said.

ACTS 17, an acronym for “Acknowledging Christ in Technology and Society,” aims to create a community of Christians and non-Christians to talk about many topics, including religion and Jesus.

Stephens said she has faced questions on whether they are seemingly “tending to the rich” with ACTS 17’s work rather than giving back to the poor. She pushes back on that criticism. “Christians actually don’t do a very good job of ministering to the wealthy, who can think that they’re basically gods themselves which can be very dangerous,” she said.

A charismatic Antichrist

The twin concepts of the Armageddon and the Antichrist have been the subject of intense scrutiny and attention for generations, especially interpretations of the Book of Revelation, which includes vivid imagery as it describes the conditions that lead to a final battle between good and evil.

At one recent lecture, an audience member asked Thiel if a certain world leader was the Antichrist. Thiel said the leader wasn’t “charismatic enough,” according to Nestor Tkachenko, a startup CEO who is attending the lectures. In the past, Thiel has named certain left-leaning political figures as analogues for what the Antichrist could be.

This month’s lectures appear to build on Thiel’s two-hour interview with Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan and host of “Uncommon Knowledge,” a show by Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

The two discussed Thiel’s sourcing for his theories on Armageddon and the Antichrist, which include biblical texts like the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel, and fictional books such as “Lord of the World,” a dystopian science-fiction novel written by a Catholic priest in 1907.

At one point in the conversation, Robinson asked Thiel why he believed in texts that much of contemporary society has ignored. “One can take it seriously without taking it completely literally,” Thiel responded.

“The Antichrist probably presents as a great humanitarian, it’s redistributive, it’s an extremely great philanthropist as an effective altruist,” Thiel said. “And these things are not simply anti-Christian, but it is always when they get overly combined with state power that something is very wrong.”

Thiel also draws heavily from theories and personal conversations with René Girard, a French historian who taught at Stanford University. For his San Francisco lecture series, Thiel has added new sources, including Renaissance paintings from the Italian artist Luca Signorelli to Japanese comic books, also known as manga, according to people in attendance.

“In some sense, the apocalyptic prophecies are just a prediction of what humans are likely to do in a world in which they have ever more powerful technologies in which there are no sacred limits on the use of these technologies,” said Thiel in past talks.

Zizek on (Soft v Libertarian) Fascism/ Conservative Modernization

Has Liberalism's Left-Trending Overton Window Achieved its' Roche Limit?

Yep.

The Liberal so-called "Experts" and "Adults" in the room are all Disempowered Lookey-Loos living in Liberal La-La Land passively waiting for a Feminine inspired Paradise of War Communism to Rise... AFTER the Fall.  Like Christians awaiting "the Next Life" and Surrendering to an Eschaton Miraculously Immanentized attitude!. @@

...and the "Soft Fascism" Conservatives?  "Muh Technical Singularity, Bro!"

Libertarian Fascism Forever!

Commerce (Main Street) NOT Capitalism (Wall Street)

Small Anti-Fragile Risk Taking, NOT Big Corporate Fragile Risk Aversion

Move Towards the Private Ownership/ Direction, Not the Salaried-Proletariat  Public 'Means of Production' Ownership and Government Redistributionism

Pumped Up (w/ Dark Matter?) Cores/ Sub-Halo's...

from Google AI:

The Roche limit is the distance from a celestial body at which the tidal forces from a more massive primary body overcome the smaller body's self-gravity, causing it to disintegrate. This disintegration forms a ring of debris, a common way planetary rings form, and the limit's exact distance depends on the relative densities and structural integrity of the two bodies.

What happens at the Roche limit?

- Gravitational Overwhelm: The larger body's gravitational pull creates tidal forces that are stronger on the near side of the smaller body than on its far side. 

 

- Disintegration: When the smaller body (like a moon or comet) comes within the Roche limit, these tidal forces stretch and tear it apart. 

 

- Formation of Rings: The resulting debris then spreads out to form a ring around the primary body.

Factors influencing the Roche limit

The Roche limit is not a fixed distance but varies depending on:

- Density of the primary body: A more massive or denser primary body has stronger tidal forces and a larger Roche limit. 

 

- Density and size of the satellite: A smaller, less dense satellite will be torn apart at a greater distance than a larger, more dense one. 

 

-Structural strength of the satellite: A rigid object like a solid ball will have a closer Roche limit than a "fluid" or deformable object, which will stretch and break apart more easily.

Examples

- Saturn's rings: Many astronomers believe that Saturn's rings are made from the debris of a moon that crossed inside Saturn's Roche limit. 

 

- Phobos' future: Phobos, a moon of Mars, is on a path to eventually cross into Mars' Roche limit, which could lead to the formation of a ring around Mars

More:

The Roche limit is the distance within which a celestial body will disintegrate due to tidal forces, while the event horizon is a boundary around a black hole from which nothing, not even light, can escape. You cannot directly calculate a single "Roche limit event horizon" because they are distinct astrophysical concepts. However, you can calculate the Roche limit for an object approaching a black hole using the formula d = R(2ρM/ρm)¹/³ (or d = R(2MM/Mm)¹/³) for rigid or fluid bodies, respectively, and the Schwarzschild radius for the event horizon using the formula rs = 2GM/c², noting that the Roche limit is usually much larger than the event horizon. 

Calculating the Roche Limit

The Roche limit depends on the radius and densities of the two bodies involved. For a rigid satellite. 

d = R(2 * ρM/ρm)¹/³ 

• d: The Roche limit (distance of disintegration)
• R: The radius of the larger body
• ρM: The density of the larger body
• ρm: The density of the smaller body (satellite)
• For a fluid satellite:

d ≈ 2.423R(ρM/ρm)¹/³ 

• This accounts for the satellite's ability to deform.

Calculating the Event Horizon (Schwarzschild Radius)

The event horizon for a non-rotating black hole is defined by the Schwarzschild radius: 

• rs = 2GM/c²:
  • rs: The Schwarzschild radius (event horizon radius)
  • G: The gravitational constant
  • M: The mass of the black hole
  • c: The speed of light

Key Differences

• Mechanism: 

  The Roche limit is caused by differential tidal forces stretching an object apart. The event horizon is a point of no return due to extreme gravitational warping of spacetime. 
• Relationship to Black Holes: 

  The event horizon is a specific property of the black hole itself, while the Roche limit is a distance defined by the interaction between a black hole and another object. 
• Typical Ratios: 

  For a sufficiently massive black hole, its Roche limit for a stellar-mass object can be well outside its event horizon, meaning you can get close to a black hole without immediate spaghettification, though you would still eventually cross the event horizon

 

.