Richard Spencer’s neo-pagan, anti-Christian readers
Good for Richard Spencer for allowing this article to be put up at Alternative Right: “The Problems of Neopaganism,” by Patrick Ford. But there are neo-pagans in the peanut gallery who take umbrage; for example, Greg Johnson, who is editor of The Occidental Quarterly Online, grinds an axe (he misconstrues Ford’s statement in the article):
Ford writes: “that the Church was built as a repository of truth with the distinct purpose of spreading that truth and, through that truth, saving men’s souls, is beyond question.” Well, gosh, if that is beyond question, then who exactly is his audience? The people who agree with that premise don’t need a polemic against neo-paganism, and those who are open to neo-paganism obviously don’t take the truth of Christianity for granted, so Ford has nothing to say to them. No dialogue is possible here. What a waste of space this article is!
I could only expect this much from Christians: more lying. All things to all men indeed.
This seems out of place on a website dedicated to Radical Traditionalism, shaped primarily by Guenon and Evola, both of whom rejected Christianity. The latter even advocated for a revival of paganism in Europe (see Imperialismo Pagano).
Here’s a winner:
We need a religion which can help us fight. There is one—Cattel’s Beyondism, “a religion from science”. In principle, it is worship of future generations, our descendants—and there is nothing more congruent than that—we believe in OUR children and we do everything to MAKE them better. Think about it and investigate.
Let’s all pretend to believe something, it will truly inspire us!
Jesus preached tolerance of evil (i.e., Turn the other cheek, refusing to answer Pilate’s charges, telling Peter to not strike his captors with his sword, surrendering without fighting his captors, etc).
The White neo-Pagan movement is, at its current state, made up of whitewashed tombs (that’s a deliberate play on words).
Thor, one of the traditional “pagan” gods of Norse mythology—through example, not by mere words(!)—taught that evil should be defeated (i.e., Thor is the champion of slaying wicked trolls, Thor led legions of warriors to battle against the Sons of Musspell at Ragnarok, etc).
Jesus is best represented by his body, which he sacrificed by refusing to fight. Thor is best represented by his hammer, which he uses to slaughter the enemies of his people.
Which ethos is commendable? Which ethos will save the West? The one that accepts perversion and tolerates evil, or the one that preaches that it should be eradicated?
I submit to you that Christianity is going to be the ruin of the West, just as it was for the Roman Empire (i.e., Christians refused to fight and the Germanic peoples—the followers of Donner/Thor—destroyed Rome).
Worship Jesus all you want; all I ask is that you not get in the way of those of us who will actually defend Western civilization.
[end of Alt-Right comment]
A few thoughts.
- end of initial entry -
(1) What does the phrase “Radical Traditionalism” mean? We know that Richard Spencer is non-Christian and probably anti-Christian. Certainly some of his commenters are anti-Christian and he is allowing to be posted at his site comments that delegitimize and express bigotry toward Christianity . Since traditionalism normally means such things as American traditionalism, European traditionalism, and Christian traditionalism, and since Alt-Right is non- or anti-Christian, therefore Radical Traditionalism can only mean pre-Christian traditionalism. Spencer, like the thinkers of the European pagan “New Right” before him (who were also anti-American), is trying to go back to and revive pre-Christian Europe. He’s trying to revive a tradition that pre-dates our civilization. But if it pre-dates our civilization, it’s not our tradition. Which means that Spencer’s Radical Traditionalism is no traditionalism at all, but a leap outside our tradition. Which is not to say that what is called paganism is not part of our tradition. But those pagan elements have only come down to us through the medium or our Christian culture. There simply is no “pagan traditionalism” in the West. To the contrary, the West came into existence in the act of replacing paganism.
(2) Given the above, no wonder Spencer treated the irrelevant and absurd David Frum as his foil in his introductory video. Frum wants to create a “conservatism” that is pro-homosexual marriage, pro some form of nationalized health, anti-Rush Limbaugh, and anti-mainstream conservatism, which Frum sees as disgusting demagoguery. Spencer wants to create a “traditionalism” which consists of anti-Christians who hark back to the pagan world and reject 2,000 years of Christian tradition. What do the two men, so utterly different, have in common? Each is trying to create a chimerical “conservative” belief system which is a contradiction in terms and will have almost no followers.
Correction: there are a fair number of anti-Christians out there, Conservative Swede types, who will be drawn to Alt-Right. But what will this group have to do with any Western or European traditionalism? Conservative Swede’s explicit wish is the destruction of Western civilization because of the worm of Christianity at its core.
(3) I see that Patrick Ford is assistant editor at Alternative Right. How will this defender of Christendom co-exist at the same site with the materialist reductionist and moral nihilist Richard Hoste, author of several of the inaugural articles at Alt-Right, who has said that America should not defend itself from Muslim terrorism, since we could endure the equivalent of a 9/11 attack once a year and it would be no more damaging to the country than traffic accidents? Does Spencer’s inclusion of both individuals at his site demonstrate urbanity, or incoherence?
(4) I just remembered that Jim Kalb, a traditionalist Catholic, has some kind of advisory role at Alternative Right. What does he have to do with Spencer’s neo-paganism? The same for Paul Gottfried, who is a believing Jew. Again, is there a coherent idea here, or the intellectual equivalent of an Italian coalition government? After all, Gottfried, a self-described defender of Israel, co-existed happily at Taki’s Magazine, published by an outspoken anti-Semite who called Israel “the Bernie Madoff of countries.” So I suppose Gottfried can find a happy modus vivendi—or is it a dhimma contract?—with neo-pagans as well. And how does Jim Kalb feel being associated with a site where total enemies of Christianity evidently have free rein? Is this all about mutual tolerance and forebearance among different types of Alternative Rightists in the interests of comity, no matter how mutually incompatible their views? Maybe the Alternative Rightists are the true liberals.
(5) Another thought. Going back to the pre-Christian, pagan world also means going back to the pre-Jewish world, which means not only a world without the Jews, but a world without that damned Creator of the Universe who gave rise to universalism and thus to liberalism. This was also the project of the European New Right. While the wish, driven by the horrors of liberalism, to uproot liberalism at its deepest roots by uprooting Christianity and the God of the Bible, is understandable (meaning that one can understand how a person comes to that idea), it is, leaving aside the wrongness of it, a doomed and futile enterprise. We are Western men, born of the multi-leveled merging of Christianity, Classical philosophy, and the Germanic cultures of Europe, and cannot be something else—unless it is to commit suicide. The answer, then, is not to reject Christianity and the God who in the beginning created the heaven and the earth. The answer is to join those understandings with a sustainable, non-liberal social order appropriate to Western Man.
Daniel S. writes:
I find the repeated attacks on Christianity by the neo-pagans to be most perplexing. Now I’m no expert on European history, but as I recall Charles Martel, Pope Urban II, Richard the Lionhearted, Don Juan of Austria, Jan III Sobieski were all devout Christians who defended Western Christendom from the invasion of Islam. Indeed one would be hard pressed to find any Christian figure in the medieval era that advocated surrendering to Islam in the name of Christian charity. So such charges from the neo-pagan crowd are ignorant nonsense from people who are more anti-Christian than pro-West. As the Catholic essayist Hilaire Belloc noted, “the faith is Europe and Europe is the faith” and the neo-pagans would do well to remember that. As for the German pagan tribes, they may have been tough fighters, but they had no civilization prior to accepting Christianity. So what is there to go back to? Outside of the Greeks and Romans, no pre-Christian European people had any civilization. They were merely assorted tribes of warring Celts, Goths, Saxons, and Slavs. They produced no Aristotles, no Ciceros, no Homers, no Euclids, or any men of this caliber. Yet medieval Christendom produced countless philosophers, scientists, artists, and other great men of repute who are still known and admired in our own times. The past that neo-paganism longs to return to is a mythical and non-existent as the gods of German mythology.
Kilroy M. writes:
I can see where you are confused about the “point” of the Radical Traditionalists.
They will capitalise the term “Tradition” because it is not supposed to convey its lay meaning but rather it is a part of the “sophia perennis” which is the source of all that is essential to all civilisations: Pagan, Jewish, Vedic, Muslim or Christian. When they speak of “Tradition,” they are not talking about something that is part of the pagan world-view only and therefore not part of the Christian West. “Tradition” is the underpinning Truth of human existence which men have throughout millennia been labouring to discover and manifest externally (that manifestation being the small “t” tradition we are familiar in terms of high culture).
The Radical Traditionalists are fundamentally opposed to the modern world because in their eyes it has revolted against objective and timeless Truths (about human nature etc) and is thus living in an anti-civilisation. Modern neo-pagans that appeal to the old RadTrads such as Rene Guenon are ignorant of the fact that he, while eventually a convert to Sufi Islam, had a great deal of good things to say about the Catholic Church as the last repository of Tradition in its Western garb: he devotes a considerable portion of Crisis of the Modern World to this, and it is certainly worth reading, even for Traditionalist Conservatives such as us. [LA replies: Are you saying that the neo-pagans like Guenon because he was a convert to Sufism and because they don’t realize he said good things about the Church?]
The reason why they have rejected Christianity (apart from its apparent celebration of the meek and thus rejection of the heroic principle) is the strong Nietzschean Christophobia present among many of its followers (which itself comes from the anti-Semitic feeling a la “Christianity is a Jewish Consequence”). [LA replies: I can’t convey how discouraging and ridiculous it is to see intelligent people in the year 2010 not just reading Nietzsche, which intelligent people ought to do, but actually following him (while adding anti-Semitism as well). He who has not been a Nietzschean before he is thirty has no heart; he who is still a Nietzschean after he is thirty has no head.] The rejection is therefore really a result of a clash of world views: Judea-Christian being passive and lunar against the Old Pagan being more virile, male and solar. But an honest RadTrad who believes in sophia perennis will have to admit that Truth also exists in Jewish civilisation, while their characterisation of Christianity’s impact on Western history is unjust and inaccurate (they do not account for the Martels, Sobieskis etc, who were no passivist, meek, dhimmis!). Fact is, most of these rightist neo-pagans are not honest about the beliefs they purport to hold.
I’m sure I mentioned the RadTrads and Julius Evola to you before in personal correspondence, and if I remember correctly you said you weren’t familiar with them. Evola is possibly one of the best known of the old RadTrads—I confess I’m not aware of whether he was a convert to Sufi or Alawi Islam (a strong trend among the RadTrads which I find bizarre—why not just go back to Tridentine Mass Catholicism, for example?) as I thought he was a practicing Mithraic Pagan.
Mark Sedgwick wrote a good critique of the Radical Traditionalists: Against The Modern World, but you should read it after you get your hands on Guenon’s Crisis of the Modern World, and Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World and Men Among The Ruins (which has a great 100 page introduction explaining the whole deal).
I hope that helps.
Ok, so it’s a Traditionalism which takes them outside the West, to other traditions.
Kilroy M. continues:
On another point, I believe there is far too much destructive sectarianism within the Right, and not just in terms of religion. So what if Alt Right has Trad Catholics and neo-Pagans? Can’t we “let a thousand flowers blossom” and just see where the synthesis, if any, takes us? Reading the critiques of new groups/blogs I often think that we do much of the left’s work for them—we shoot at each other instead of ignoring the exotic idiosyncrasies of some faction, getting over it and moving forward.
This is a criticism of me of course. You’re saying that anti-Christian neo-pagans are my fellow conservatives and therefore I ought to tolerate them. But your premise is incorrect. Anti-Christian neo-pagans are not my fellow conservatives. Natives of the West who place themselves outside the West and reject the West are not the allies of Western conservatives.
The reason I annoy so many people (look at the two recent anti-Auster manifestations, a.k.a. blog threads, at Dennis Mangan’s site, here and here) is that I draw definitional lines between what is a legitimate part of conservatism and what is not. I say, for example, that anti-theism, anti-Christianism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and the material reductionism that leads to moral nihilism are both wrong in themselves and not a part of conservatism. But many people on the right today are “big tent types”—or rather “big website types.” They want to include in the discussion anyone who calls himself conservative or right-wing, or, for that matter, anyone who posts a comment. Therefore someone like me who draws lines—who says that there are certain things that are both wrong in themselves and not a legitimate part of conservatism—is committing the worst sin. The fundamental premise of the big tent types is liberal and relativistic: they nonjudgmentally include everyone. By contrast, I say that there is no chance of a viable conservatism unless certain things that ought to be excluded from the outset, are excluded from the outset.
There is no escape from making judgments as to what is acceptable and unacceptable. Even the uber tolerant ones make such judgments: they think that to make judgments as to what is acceptable and unacceptable is unacceptable—a contradictory position that Bob Dylan identified when he talked about the people who “don’t hate nothin’ except hatred.”
Now, people will have different views about which substantive things ought to be excluded. But that is an honest and legitimate disagreement, the kind of disagreement that politics ought to be about, as contrasted with the dishonest and illegitimate disagreements created by liberalism, which says that we must tolerate everyone—everyone, that is, except for the intolerant ones, who must be discredited and destroyed.
Michael P. writes:
Kilroy M. wrote:
On another point, I believe there is far too much destructive sectarianism within the Right, and not just in terms of religion. So what if Alt Right has Trad Catholics and neo-Pagans? Can’t we “let a thousand flowers blossom” and just see where the synthesis, if any, takes us?
K both misquoting and misunderstands the meaning of the phrase taken from a 1957 Mao Tse-tung speech. The Hundred Flowers campaign was a trap under the guise of free criticism set by Mao in order to expose his political opponents whom he then destroyed.
“Let a hundred flowers bloom” has become a common expression. I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that people often use it straight, in the sense of letting things develop in their multiplicity, not in the original, sinister, Maoist sense.
At the same time, I have to wonder, on what terms does Kilroy think that a synthesis between Catholicism and neo-paganism is possible?
Michael P. replies:
It’s just that employing a phrase (even one misquoted) that was originally intended as a political ruse is, in my opinion, not really appropriate to what Kilroy meant; he obviously did not mean to imply what the phrase does (at least in its historical context).
The hoary neo-pagan argument that the hardy pagan barbarians from the North crushed the Romans because the Christianity of the latter made them weak has two big problems:
1. By the time of the barbarian invasions, the Roman Legions were composed mostly of barbarians.
2. The barbarians who rolled over Rome were themselves Christians.
One would think these facts would be more widely known, but since they are not, they bear repeating.
D. writes from Seattle:
Based on Kilroy M.’s comment, philosophers who have inspired Radical Traditionalists are, among others, Rene Guenon (converted to Islam) and Julius Evola (admirer of SS). A question comes to mind: what kind of tradition are the RadTrads trying to uphold? Kilroy partially answered that, saying that they are trying to uphold eternal wisdom, not any particular historical tradition. So it boils down to the idea that they are trying not so much to uphold a tradition, but to construct some ideal, not based in actual historical experience, which is not a tradition at all. Or rather it is a tradition in a sense that The Lord of the Rings or any countless works of science fiction describe traditions, which is, fictional traditions.
The question then becomes: do people who try to preserve actual historical traditions (Western or others) have anything in common with people who try to establish fictional traditions? I would say, if Radical Traditionalists are trying to establish some new tradition that is antagonistic to the actual historical tradition that Traditional Conservatives are trying to uphold, then Radical Traditionalists should be viewed as revolutionaries and treated as such, their “traditionalist” label notwithstanding. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
Very astute comment. Thanks for clarifying that.
The comments at Alternative Right is brutally pagan. This is life among the ruins.
Here is a sampling of more comments replying to Patrick Ford’s pro-Christian article.
There is so much that is wrong with this article it defies belief really—where do you begin? Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, based on a book written by people who thought the earth was flat. It spread like a virus across Europe, destroying vast bodies of knowledge and tradition. It flies in the face of our most basic predispositions towards honour, nobility and courage, by enshrining impossible double standards and passive-aggressive trickery, instead of real values.
At evert step of the way Christianity has lied, or at the very least spread untruths in order to fulfill its agenda of domination. Whilst my ancestors pursued truth, Christianity did all it can to expunge it. The Bible is full of internal contradictions and claims which are preposterous. Was Noah’s ark ever really filled with two of each of the billions of species on the planet? Do bushes talk to people? Is it ever right to mutilate the genitals of children?
All the major claims made by Christians over the years have bene proven to be untrue. Heaven isn’t literally above the clouds and no building has ever impinged upon it. The earth isn’t flat. and it isn’t at the centre of the Universe. And so on.
It is ludicrous for a Christian to talk about ‘truth’.
It’s also ludicrous for a Christian to talk about ‘saving’ Western society when that religion has done so much to destroy it. without Universalist Christianity it is doubtful we ever would have allowed the multitudes of people who seek to destroy the West into our midst, nor would we have ‘turned the other cheek’.
It is too silly.
Pragmatic heathens on the other hand respect that our culture is more than 2000 years old, and massively pre dates the Latin language. We deal with reality, not abstract constructs that have neve ronce been proven, and accept that Jung may have been onto something.
What a truly silly article….
When the National Socialists took over in Germany there was a small faction who liked to vomit over the historic faith of the German people. These anti-Christians were quickly marginalized and after a future White Nationalist victory in the West these same type of agressive anti-Christs will pushed to the margins as well. Political movements trying to gain power should not insult the most cherished beliefs of their own people. You wouldn’t think I wouldn’t need to remind people of that but it looks like I do.
To which parmenicleitus replies:
I’m certainly glad to see you hold ideology above your own kind in true Bolshevist fashion. After all, it was they who used those naughty little camps before the NS, to “marginalize” others. But, I guess that one Jew is holier than anything … oh wait … it isn’t his body we’re talking about, but his “spirit.” Right …
Again, I think it will be an interesting activity to try and cut through the hermeneutics and apologia that will continue to bolster the Church when y’all get a black African, or a Hispanic, for your Holy Papa. It’s not the man, but the Office, after all.
Judeo-Christianity has proven to be so bad for Western Civilization that one could feasibly propose that its arch-nemesis, Organized Satanism, may even be a better alternative.
And here is Greg Johnson again:
One time uber-Satanist David Myatt is certainly more concerned with the survival of my kind then the average Lutheran minister working over-time to import unassimiable Somalis or Catholics giving hand-outs to mestizo illegals!!!
Thank you for eloquence and good judgment. Even if Jesus really were the son of God, even if he really rose from the dead, I would reject Christianity because of the poisonous values it teaches.
So if Christ is the son of God and spoke the truth about the path to salvation, you wouldn’t follow him because it conflicts with your personal inclinations? There goes any chance of me taking Greg Johnson seriously ever again.
[end of Gintas’s comment]
Again, I’m scratching my head in wonderment at Richard Spencer. In my communications with him, he seems a rational, intelligent person. His announced intention was to launch a new kind of conservative magazine aimed at saving the West. Yet from its very start he lets it be filled with this kind of nauseating, low-level trash. So to whom does he think he’s appealing? What kind of readership does he expect to build? Indeed, the split between the Richard Spencer with whom I’m acquainted and the Richard Spencer who is creating this website is so stark that I’m starting to wonder if there’s any truth to the claim that Richard Spencer and Richard Hoste are the same person.
I would add that The Occidental Quarterly, of which Greg Johnson, Ph.D., is the editor, is an anti-Semitic publication. Its online edition currently has an article by the anti-Semite Tanstaafl in which every reference to the Jews is spelled lower case, as “jew” or “jewish.” Here is an anti-Semitism so crude and all-encompassing that even through the spelling of words it expresses its intention to denigrate and dehumanize the Jews.
LA to Gintas in response to the above comments he sent from Alt-Right:
Tell me this. How did anti-Christians pick up so quickly on the fact that this is an anti-Christian site and start posting there?
Also, what is your take on Patrick Ford’s presence there as editor, given that he’s a Christian?
Yeah, that was just off one page of comments, and there are four pages. It might be worth a one-time trip over there to read through them.
I don’t see Ford lasting long there. Nor Kalb. What are they good for at such a place other than as punching bags?
If Gottfried hangs on (I haven’t seen anything by him yet), Fleming’s judgment could be proven right, I’ll forward the email I sent a while ago (November 20, 2009) for reference.
This is from Gintas’s November 20, 2009 e-mail quoting Thomas Fleming at Chronicles.
Yes, I still go over there once in a while. Fleming is addressing the “Alternative Right” here:
The boys calling themselves “the alternative right” are insignificant in themselves, but the movement they are latching onto is extremely important. Its elements include: the Neopaganism that reemerged in the Renaissance, the nationalism spawned by the French Revolution, the occultism of Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley, the Nordicism of mystical Germans, and the millennialist aspirations that have launched so many mediocre young men into revolutionary communism and Marxism. It is a foul-smelling brew, but in a society that is losing its bearings, such improbable and illogical combinations begin to seem to make sense to unhappy members of the dispossessed majority.
I added the bold.
Under the inspiration of Paul Gottfried? Is Gottfried leading an anti-Christian charge? He has made a lot of noise about the failure of white Anglo-Saxon Protestantism.
[ … ]
Far from wishing to start a quarrel with Takimag, which is, after all, owned by a good friend, I did intend to point to the foolishness of younger neopagans who have taken to talking about the alternative right and “postpaleoconservatism.” I have discussed this problem both in private conversation and in emails with the editor of Takimag. He does not agree with me at all. As I have explained, I believe this stuff is not only poisonous to the souls and minds of those who imbibe it, but it also has the terrible effect of dividing whatever is left of the right. I have suggested that he undertake a serious study of paganism and neopaganism and as a scholar on the subject, I am happy to assist. The reason I do not give the names of the offending young writers—and Mr. Spencer is not one of them—is that they are not important in themselves but only as illustrations of what is going wrong with American youth.
Under the inspiration of my former colleague Paul Gottfried, these peripheral males have embraced anti-Christianity and in looking for a Germanic way out they have latched upon Wagnerian Nordicism as a religion surrogate that will restore American manhood, and yet, when one looks at the pictures they choose to post of themselves, they deliberately adopt poses that make the comic David Spade seem like a macho man. Why do they do this? One thinks inevitably of Ernst Rohm and his boys.
[end of Gintas e-mail]
In a discussion last December at VFR (go here and search for “Gottfried and Fleming are starting a back-and-forth”), Gintas quoted from the Fleming-Gottfried discussion at Chronicles and Fleming’s statement that he had removed Gottfried from Chronicles’ editorial board.
In the exchange at VFR, I keep pointing out that Gottfried’s quoted statements are not anti-Christian, but the sort of standard criticism of liberal Christianity that any conservative would make. So (as far as I remember) I have yet to see any sign of the anti-Christianism of which Gottfried is accused. At the same time, I also don’t understand why he has associated himself with Richard Spencer’s anti-Christian project. The same goes for Jim Kalb.
Kilroy M. writes:
Thank you to Michael P. for explaining the origin of the phrase I used, “Let a hundred flowers bloom.”. You are quite right, we should be careful not to corrupt the true meaning of these things, otherwise they lose their effect or become misleading. I stand corrected.
On the issue of sectarianism, it wasn’t my objective to criticise Mr. Auster specifically; actually I find this problem is greatest among the pagan and anti-Semitic factions of the right. I agree that there are core aspects of Traditional Conservatism, such as Christianity, that cannot be compromised because it would inflict too much violence against the essential aspects of the civilisation we wish to revive. I cannot compromise on the Christianity issue, but I am more than willing to work with Odinists/Wotinists who want to restrict and reverse non-European immigration to the West.
Rather, my observation was that while we have to remain true to our beliefs, we shouldn’t allow differences on fundamental points overflow to arguments on the trivial periphery. I’m not saying that this is happening here at VFR. It’s happening at Alt Right insofar as people who hold view X are complaining that view Y is hosted on a site designed to provide a forum for disenfranchised rightists. This being the case, I believe that the Alt Right experiment, which I have no reason to believe was motivated by anything other than the most noble sentiments, has failed before it’s gotten off the ground: most obviously, there is nothing “alternative” about it. It’s just another rightist site that has opened its doors to warring factions of the right. Those factions have their own institutes and publications to retreat to, and in their absence, Alt Right is an empty vessel. In the absence of some Charter, Covenant or Understanding being entered into between these factions, whereby they agree to work on common ground while letting their idiosyncrasies pass, no broad “getting together” will be possible, and Spencer’s project has perished in utero.
There is nothing “astute” in the comment from D. From Seattle, who totally misconstrues and misunderstands the RadTrad’s idea of Traditionalism. The RadTrads are not trying to “construct an ideal not based in actual historical experience,” or a “fictitious” or “new” Tradition. They are trying to reconnect to a Traditional core that is common to every civilisation before the bastardising effects of materialism, sensualism and modernity in general. I thought I made that clear in my first post. [LA replies: I don’t think it’s a matter of your not making it clear; I think you were clear, but D. of Seattle has a different view.]
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 13, 2010 07:54 PM | Send
Moreover, Evola was an admirer of the SS, that is true, but only for the ritualistic aspects of the order which were themselves the product of German occultists from the Thule Society, the Germanenorden etc. Evola’s rejection of biological racism led to his being blackballed by the SS and even an order from Himmler himself that he was not to be trusted and cut off from future co-operative visits etc.