He seemed to be perceptive to corrupt features of reality and had informed thoughts in the beginning, and then moved to extreme abstract ideals, but never came back down to earth to consider their consequences.
I would expect very few people to be able to return to "the real world" after having reached such conclusions (which may have been, at the time, reached rationally or irrationally), taken them to heart, and live in today's world, attending high school. Teenagers, usually regardless of "IQ"/intellect, are extremely impressionable, and tends towards this sort of hormone-fueled irrationality. Expecting someone that has already
reached purportedly misanthropic conclusions is probably going to self-destruct anyhow, both due to their character and the pronounced neurosis of our modern times.
I feel like a lot of the discussion in this thread seeks to label this event and this person as something necessarily "good" or "bad" (intellectually well-intentioned vs. moronic, confused vs. corrupted, etc.); the same thing has happened with regard to other current events and modern dilemmas, but most recently terrorism and Islam. The fact is, we KNOW that this is indicative of a growing phenomenon - and that this might provoke (global) society to recognize its flaws or it might not. If we nit-pick over every inconsequential little detail then it seems we only end up confusing ourselves or bickering rather than actually learning from each other.
Also, do you "not read" Evola, or just have never gotten around to it?