Intresting thoughts on the situation in Libya

Now as many of you know Im not a National Anarchist but I think this article somes up in some areas social nationalist feeling on the situation in Libya.
http://www.national-anarchist.net/2011/08/national-anarchist-attitude-towards-so.html
Enjoy

Good article by the NAM.. There are several new "third position" Anarchist groups that I am gaining respect for. Their views are better than the Anarcho-Communist and much better than the overtly racial National Anarchists one finds on stormfront and others I've contacted.

This is my own video of the truth about the great Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi:

Why MUST Gaddafi really die?

Good video comrade

Yea the NAM do produce some good articles and many I find myself in agreament with but there are also many I dont especially the ones on or influenced by Julius Evola as I find his upper class rehtoric concerning many issues strange at the least and damn right reactionary at at worst.

Thanks for the compliment.

I have not read a great deal on Evola. But many quotes by him indicate to me he is not politically reactionary. Of course he calls himself a Radical Traditionalist, which I don't know much about to classify as reactionary, or otherwise. He had contempt for the bourgeoisie and modern Western culture in general. To me, those views enough to qualify as revolutionary, although may not be satisfactory to some individual socialists.

There is a rather strong reactionary current within certain national anarchist circles, so you would be well advised to exercise caution when it comes to them, TheocWulf.

With respect to the question of Evola, he simply cannot be regarded as having been anything other than a quintessential reactionary. His 'Radical Traditionalism' was nothing more than a counterrevolution against bourgeois democracy — in favor of more rigidly aristocratic forms of social stratification. He was not in favor of empowering the working class in any way, let alone through revolutionary socialism.

Admin wrote:There is a rather strong reactionary current within certain national anarchist circles, so you would be well advised to exercise caution when it comes to them, TheocWulf.

With respect to the question of Evola, he simply cannot be regarded as having been anything other than a quintessential reactionary. His 'Radical Traditionalism' was nothing more than a counterrevolution against bourgeois democracy — in favor of more rigidly aristocratic forms of social stratification. He was not in favor of empowering the working class in any way, let alone through revolutionary socialism.

Thanks admin I have never exactly been sure how Evola fitted into any Anarchic thinking.Yes I was aware of Evolas thaughts on an aristorcartic social order I think he was saddend that the days of the aristorcrat were nearly dead by his time and being replaced by Capitalists.Im no more in favour of returing to an aristorcatic system than I am living in a capitalist one.The works and Evola and similar people is the reason I never really went near the NAM.

Just to point out although Evola said some reactionary things and some NAs may be also im sure most Radical Traditionalists are not.I found this intresting.

What does it mean to be a radical traditionalist?

It means to reject the modern, materialist reign of "quantity over quality," the absence of any meaningful spiritual values, environmental devastation, the mechanization and over-specialization of urban life, and the imperialism of corporate mono-culture, with it's vulgar "values" of progress and efficiency. It means to yearn for the small, homogeneous tribal societies that flourished before Christianity -- societies in which every aspect of life was integrated into a holistic system.

What we represent:

Resacralization of the world versus materialism; folk/traditional culture versus mass culture; natural social order versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth; the tribal community versus the nation-state; stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources”; a harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes”; handicrafts and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

TheocWulf wrote:Just to point out although Evola said some reactionary things and some NAs may be also im sure most Radical Traditionalists are not.I found this intresting.

What does it mean to be a radical traditionalist?

It means to reject the modern, materialist reign of "quantity over quality," the absence of any meaningful spiritual values, environmental devastation, the mechanization and over-specialization of urban life, and the imperialism of corporate mono-culture, with it's vulgar "values" of progress and efficiency. It means to yearn for the small, homogeneous tribal societies that flourished before Christianity -- societies in which every aspect of life was integrated into a holistic system.

What we represent:

Resacralization of the world versus materialism; folk/traditional culture versus mass culture; natural social order versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth; the tribal community versus the nation-state; stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources”; a harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes”; handicrafts and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

Though your quote is rather vague, one could perhaps (tenuously) argue that a couple of the outlined principles are somewhat progressive. The rest of it, however, reads like it was taken from some Luddite treatise. As for Evola, this is not just a question of an individual being guilty of a few offhand remarks. His entire worldview was informed by the sorts of elitist/aristocratic notions I previously alluded to.

Why the hell are we discussing Evola outside of the reactionaries section?

Barone Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (May 19, 1898 – June 11, 1974) also known as Julius Evola, was an Italian philosopher and esotericist. Evola regarded his stances and spiritual values as aristocratic, masculine, traditionalist, heroic and defiantly reactionary.

Ah, I see,

Since World War II many Radical Traditionalist, New Right, Conservative Revolutionary, Fascist and Third Positionist groups have taken inspiration from him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

Groups that no doubt include Strasserites.

Groups that no doubt include Strasserites.

Your probably correct there comrade.

Isakenaz wrote:Why the hell are we discussing Evola outside of the reactionaries section?

I do agree that he is reactionary, but with all due respect, I don't believe the entire thread should be moved because Evola's name was brought up.