Before I discovered Evola, I had never even heard of such a thing as a criticism of Nazism from the actual Right. All of the so-called conservatives I had heard up until then only offered criticism that was hopelessly trapped in the worldview of liberalism. The world needs more Right-wingers who are able to escape the all consuming maw of liberal ideology.
Aside from what you mentioned, the only other criticism of Nazism from the right was some hardcore Catholics that disapproved of Hitler's attempts to create a racist alternative church, and some accusing him of being a pagan or atheist.
@@thegoodolddays9193 the only true "right" is Christian conservative right. I don't get how Evola is traditionalist, he is still inventing a huge number of abstract and esoteric concepts like "the order of Men", heroism of the belief in the "spirit". He is trying to avoid the very clear and simple fact, that the tradition of the west is Christianity. And for whatever reason the modern right is ashamed of that and buys in the cynicism of the left towards that tradition.
@@Donfryesmustache Being openly against Christianity in 1930s Germany would've been a really unpopular stance, even among the party, so I don't think he had a choice other than using it.
@@alternativeavenues7664 He is a Traditionalist School philospher and Thinker. He's Right-Wing, because he is Tradionalist. Far-Right is a modern-liberalist term of denigration and is irrelevent. Evola critiques Fascism and National Socialism from the Tradionalist frame.
sheesh u cant even write its name let alone pronouce it. Jüüüüüüüüüünger. its a üüüüüüüüüüü. if you guys want to understand german conservative philosophy learn to pronounce it first: öööööööööööööööööööööääääääääääääääääääääüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüü. tards
More Evola videos! Since Evola is an influence on Dugin, it would be great to get a greater understanding of Evola - someone who I feel is understood by few
Actually, being fascism a product of modernity, although many of its elements go back to archaic principles and forms of life, Evola is right when addresses the main issues with fascism and Nazism. Traditionalism must be understood not as an ideology required by the time and spirit of the age but a metaphysical principle that forms the structure, meaning and experience of time and epoch itself.
I actually have a book called traditionalism and fascism. It’s like a collection of all three of his works critiquing it. I’m personally not a big fan of Evola. What’s interesting though is after World War II he’s actually had a pretty big influence on the postwar fascist movement especially Italy. Franco Freda who calls himself a Nazi-Maoist is the most famous case.
@@jpmisterioman he never had a influence on Fascism until after WW2. Prior to the end of the war he was seen as a joke. After WW2 he gained traction with things like Iron March to Freda’s group. When Gregor talks about Evola it’s in the context of not meaning anything during the 20s, 30s, or 40s. Post War fascism is different than original fascism. www.google.com/amp/s/disintegrationofthesystem.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/freda-heretical-interpreter-of-evola-franco-ferraresi/amp/
@@ZoranZoltanous Sure, but Hansen(Evola's main biographer along Gianfranco) says his supposedly "influence" on postwar fascist groups was indirect and nominal. Like you said, Evola didn't had anything to do with mainstream fascism. So after the fall of fascism, some groups wanted to "main the spirit" if you will, and found in the works of marginal Evola a good scapegoat. His postwar trial on "Amongst the ruins" kinda deals with that point though.
@@jpmisterioman well you also have a cross over with Nazism with Fascism more so after the war same with National Bolshevism. I would argue though these older movements by Mussolini or Hitler were good but had many problems. Which is why I like post war people like Freda, Yockey, and Remer more. I would also argue people like Dugin who use Evola kinda bastardize him like Freda but it’s only influences.
You are Absolutely Perceptive-Insightful! A splendid summarization of this View-Point. I petition Your examination of Ancient Israel under Joshua or Ezra The Priest or Samuel or Judith who Courageously beheaded assurbanipal ! A definite Extremity of Nationalist Theocracy!
@@millerman Please pursue Your Enterprise most Emphatically! Although Moses Is The Greatest Israelite Patriarch, JOSHUA In Particular is The Great Nationalist Warrior-Statesman-Heroic Crusader. NOT as Alexander The Great or Julius Caesar or Ghenghis Khan. By Contrast, Zealous Extremity for The True-Exclusive-Everlasting God. This is NOT Over-Emotionalized Fanaticism, this Is Historical Evidence Verified Factual Realization!
I frequently get called a nazi if I say to people I'm mostly influenced by BAP, Nietzsche, and Evola. None are nazis. Nietzsche can be described as a proto fascist somewhat, in the ancient greek sense. Same with BAP and obviously Traditionalism is something that makes 30s fascism look rather dull and hypocritical, and spiritually hollow.
If you're afraid of being called a nazi then reading all that Evola and Nietzsche has been useless since you're still confined to the modern concept of what's good and evil
Nietzche’s white supremacist Anglo garbage is survival of the fittest bullshit, no different from the watered down versions of Ayn Rand, Leo Strauss. George Lukacs, perhaps the greatest Marxist philosopher of the 20th century, wrote witheringly about Nietzsche’s irrationalism in his book, The Destruction of Reason. This is “time is a flat circle” Nazi drivel.
I was discussing my problems with Adolf Hitler with a fellow bookseller today .I was trying to explain that despite likening many of his ideas I couldn't come to terms with his racial theory .Then I came across this video .I've sent it to him because Julius Evola does a far better job than me .Julius Evola, like Alexander Dugin, seems to almost always hit the nail on the head Thank you so much
There was a HUGE difference between Soviet Union and Germany...Hitler and Stalin...Communism and National socialism...The Germans LOVED Hitler and for good reason!
This was originally 1 full comment but youtube keeps deleting my comments. It took me many tries just to get these 2 comments up but there was a longer comment. There is soo much people don't know about Germany and Hitler but we're not allowed to talk about it on here. The ADL is on youtubes board.
It's confusing that Evola opposes "biological materialism" aka race based nations because the ancient view of the soul isthat its inherited(partly). He argues that many emporers were seceded by adopted people and therefore spiritual status is more important in the traditional world view the ancients put a strong emphasis on bloodlines and genetic lineage is what created qualification and dispute over crowns.
I like how he criticizes of the hyper focus on biological race I've been using about how such a government would work in a melting pot society like the United States and he's right the spiritual would be the uniting factor, Carl Jung touched on similar stuff as well
The United States is not a melting pot, that idea was just a tool for justifying international movements of people/labour under the guise of a nonexistent concept. When did the U.S. become a "melting pot"? Where did that idea come from? Who labeled the "melting pot" concept a success and therefore should be implemented in the American client States? How is it judged? How does one observe the "Melting Pot" and its distinguishing factors? Someone poined similar questions at me not that long ago and I struggled with much of it and still do, I basically believed in the "melting pot" because I was told to. I mean this post in nothing but a positive way, and found a similar post helpful in challenging my assumptions that I forgot existed.
Sometimes referred to 'the spirit/sign of the time' or the 'zeitgeist'. Its something thats reproduced across all society and all cultures have their own word for it. Jungs idea of the collective consciousness obviously therefor overlaps with the zeitgeist in many ways.
Thanks. I'll view more on these topics. At <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1746">29:06</a> Post-war democratic brainwashing - an accurate description.
Evola lived life in contradiction. When on trial in Italy after the war he flat out stated National Socialism didn't go far enough. ??? So, I believe he was never able to commit to any one dogma.
@@WhiteBaronn Yes he did say that!. No one knows why he'd phrase it like that but Evola when on trial in Italy after the war when he was questioned on the stand for by an Italian military tribunal said that verbatim! It was scandalous at the time.
@@shawngutierrez4683 Great book I can recommend is Findings In Metaphysic, Path and Lore: A Response to the Traditionalist/Perennialist School by Charles Upton. Another great book is The Underlying Religion: An Introduction to the Perennial Philosophy. Check out also Titus Burckhardt's book Mirror of the Intellect has a phenomenal critique of Julius Evola's Ride The Tiger.
@@shawngutierrez4683 Check out The Reign of Quantity (by Guenon), A Handbook of Traditional Living (they are two small books running about 100 pages each), and Revolt Against the Modern World (by Evola).
The concept of looking back to the past as a time when all was good is simply untrue and counter evolutionary. In fact, the only people to benefit from such a strategy are those with illegitimate power, whom do so to try to retain that power.When you look at almost all metrics, more people have a more comfortable life today than they they did a century or more ago. Yes there are bumps along any road as we lurch between thesis, antithesis and synthesis, but evolution is driven by change and differences, without which we’d still be apes in the trees. Retain the successful and good ideas and try to make them even better, even worth trying some disastrous ideas, it’s good to learn from them.
From Men Among the Ruins (I can recommend reading the entire first chapter, which is pretty much dedicated to this question): "Naturally, the term "reaction" intrinsically possesses a slightly negative con-notation: those who react do not have the initiative of action; one reacts, in a polemical or defensive way, when confronted by something that has already been affirmed or done. Thus, it is necessary to specify that reaction does not consist in parrying the moves of the opponent without having anything positive to oppose him with. This misperception could be eliminated by associating the formula of "reaction" with that of "conservative revolution," a formula in which a dynamic element is evident. In this context "revolution" no longer signifies a violent overthrow of a legitimate established order, but rather an action aimed at eliminating a newly emerged disorder and at reestablishing a state of normalcy. Joseph De Maistre remarked that what is needed, more than a "counterrevolution" in a polemical and strict sense, is the "opposite to a revolution," namely a positive action inspired by the origins. It is curious how words evolve: after all, revolution, according to its original Latin meaning (re-volvere), referred to a motion that led again to the starting point, to the origins. There-fore, the "revolutionary" force of renewal that needs to be employed against the existing situation should be derived from the origins. However, if one wants to embrace the idea of "conservatism" (i.e., a "conservative revolution"), it is necessary to proceed with caution. Considering the interpretation imposed by the Left, the term "conservative" is as intimidating as the term "reactionary." Obviously, it is necessary to first establish as exactly as possible what needs to be "preserved"; today there is very little that deserves to be preserved, especially as far as social structures and political institutions are concerned. In the case of Italy, this is true almost without exception; to a lesser degree it was valid for England and France, and even less for the nations of central Europe, in which vestiges of higher traditions continued to exist even on the plane of everyday life. [...] Moreover, what is needed is not to artificially and coercively perpetuate particular forms tied to the past, despite having exhausted their vital possibilities and being out of touch with the times. For the authentic revolutionary conservative, what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions, adequate for a specific period of time and in a specific geographical area. And just as these particular expressions ought to be regarded as changeable and ephemeral in themselves, since they are connected to historical circumstances that are often unrepeatable, likewise the corresponding principles animating them have a value that is unaffected by such contingencies, as they enjoy a perennial actuality. New forms, corresponding in essence to the old ones, are liable to emerge from them as if from a seed; thus, even as they eventually replace the old forms (even in a "revolutionary" manner), what remains is a certain continuity amid the changing historical, social, economic, and cultural factors."
Revolution and conservatism are contradicting terms. Look at it mechanically instead of the right wing buzzword fest. Time doesn't go backwards. Re-volve means turn again. Sides aren't a thing here. Previous states or status quo are not an ambition. It comes from a place of stagnation. National socialism is not socialism. Again, weird use of terms on the right. One aspect cancels the other. National = exclusion, socialism = inclusion. I fought court cases against this sort of attempts to neutralize or erase reality: these two words, this constructed neologism; please explain... When these people cannot blither into their own bubble then things get complicated quickly.
Did the Holocaust figure in Evola's criticism of Hitler at all? It's a bit of an elephant in the room, particularly given that he thinks it's bad to have Jews around.
Evola was still stuck at the idealist trap. His first works highlight this point: "the theory of absolute individual". Also his childish and dishonest Antichristianity held him down to bigger audiences; he got stuck at the fascist trap and other stupid sjw commentators like umberto eco definitely closed the door for him in Italy, at least to mainstream audiences. I still think revolt and the hermetic tradition are both masterpieces of the XX century and follow very well the "counter-enlightment" tradition(As Vico and Schelling). But I still think Guenon was way more serious and interesting than Evola. Guenon and Heidegger actually touched at similar themes and made similar points; but Guenon, of course, was way more interesting than anything heidegger wrote.
Yes The Hermetic Tradition is a masterly exposition of alchemy. I agree that Guenon is ultimately the more profound writer on pure metaphysics and symbolism of Tradition. Nonetheless I greatly appreciate Evolas thought.
I dont like their theology, ethics, this talk of turning the other cheek, radical equality between men before God, original sin, the castrating pacifism of the Catholic clergy, dogmatism and so on. Evola was correct in some of his opinions on Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant
There was a HUGE difference between Soviet Union and Germany...Hitler and Stalin...Communism and National socialism...The Germans LOVED Hitler and for good reason! He took them from poverty to a world super power within years! No one can deny what Hitler did for the German people, he was a great leader and the world hasn't seen such a leader since! While the rest of the world were in depression, Germany was thriving!
@NoReprensentationWithoutTax first of all they never called themselves that. The above comment is correct I suppose Germany should have just stayed in the state it was in. Maybe you like Weimar America.
