>>/72084/
> Admiration of Evola does not belong here.
I agree with your stance on Evola's personal thoughts on the Reich but it would be foolish for us to ignore his analysis on how leaders are formed. They make for a good basis on which to work from in an effort to evolve the concepts in an effort to ascertain a model that would work in this modern era.
There's a delicious irony concerning Evola actually, a good portion of his work tracks and teaches of the tools and requirements of a leader and how the world is degenerating and yet when facing the nest of liars and manipulators of the post war period he acted the coward by claiming essentially "I am not a fascist like these other fascists, I am above them all" after which he then lived in obscurity as he allows his work to be mostly forgotten. Seperating the man and his work can be useful as his work is insightful, it's just ashame he doesn't practise what he preaches. I like to think of his work on this topic as a passion project from a man who thought himself brave and went out to learn bravery in it's totality only to find when challenged he could not emulate those he sought to understand.
> That works metaphorically. Let's talk literal. If survival was top on Hitler's list, Germany may not have lost.
I agree but only partially. The war Hitler fought was in a time where men, at least some, understood concepts of honour, duty and valour. Many believed in such things even during the first war when even on Christmas day, despite the blood letting, arms were lowered and men joined for a friendly game of football. Modern, underhanded semetic tactics such as infiltration and subversion were not practised by the common soldiery and thusly I think Hitler still operated on the concept he was dealing with actual European leaders, not their parasitic puppet masters. He thought they would see reason and join him in preparing the for Communist forces invasion of Europe. Had he known the truth of how far our nations had fallen, one must wonder how his plans would of changed.
The other issue is the battle we fight now compared to the battle of then. Both are against a corrosive semetic influence but the battle lines are vastly different. Back then, when the war began Hitler mounted a counter attack that while ill fated and stretched his forces, proved successful, we are in a uphill battle from the outset due to the nature of our conflict compared to his. We have been born into a battle we didn't know we were fighting, the subversion rooted deep. We've been relying on speakers and fringe politicians who fight against it in the open only to see them fail due to the cultural monopoly the parasite has. None of these modern leaders even come close to the men of the past such as Rockwell, Pierce or even Mosley. They shackle themselves out of fear, embarass themselves by lacking credulity. This is why it's important to understand the environment from which a leader can emerge and for us to go on the offensive to help *create* it, that must be our goal. Our message must reach those who have suffered at the hands of the beast, be they the lowly man working in a shoe factory to the highest echelons who have watched their surrounding community and culture die. It is from these ranks the men we need may arise but only if they know what is needed. I can even cite two modern example of this, ableit a poor one and an adequate one.
Let us look for a moment at National Action, the ill fated and sadly anti life movement that emerged in Britain. It held rallies openly naming the tribe and recruited directly from the working class, their ranks swelled quite a bit considering. They proved successful to a degree in rallying, however they also had multiple serious issues, the first one being a completely controlled organisation. Now I know some like to claim "no man, we werent controlled op, we were legit m8". Let me make it abundantly clear, they were not a natural movement. Every member found themselves on a list, *every* member. The second issue with them, as if the first main one isn't en