Hello,
This only proves our point: "National-Socialism was far from being a
a monolithic entity". There are strong grounds for thinking, for
example, that Dr Gross did not have any part in the German-Italian
project 'Sangue e Spirito'.
Thompkins&Cariou
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, <vandermok@l...> wrote:
> In evola_as_he_is Thompkins&Cariou wrote:
>
> (...) According to him, this failure was due to Italian Catholic
circles on one hand and to Italian official racialist circles on the
other hand, and, in any case, not to the German side.(...)
> (scroll down for the complete quotation)
>
>
> This is still a delicate point: in a letter to the Ministry of the
popular instruction and propaganda of the October 3, 1942, the Dr.
Gross said about the work of Evola:
> "...A public diffusion in Germany does not seem advisable, because
we could not accept in a dogmatic way the exposure of the conceptions
of Evola about the race doctrine. On the contrary we must develop a
well established criticism..."
> (from "Julius Evola nei documenti segreti del Terzo Reich", Europa
1986).
> Moreover, in Italy, even after the end of the war, prevailed the
opinion that any racial discrimination NOT based on biological data,
was uncertain and difficult to prove (also on behalf of the deputy of
the MSI, Almirante).
> F.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Evola was critical of the official views of National-Socialism on
> race, as is clear from some of the texts published on
> http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com . However, National-Socialism
was
> far from being a monolithic entity; not all its representatives
> uphold that materialist and biological view on race which Evola
> criticised as being too close to scientific and social Darwinism;
> not all of them followed in Darré's footsteps on these matters.
> Evola's standpoint must have found an echo among some of them,
> especially among some of the representatives of conservative-
> revolution, whether writers or not, as shown, if need be, by the
> project 'Sangue e spirito', a review which was meant to contribute
> to strengthen the relationship between Germany and Italy in the
> political and racial field; Evola was invited repeatedly to Berlin
> during WW2 to finalise the programme of this review. However, this
> project fell through. According to him, this failure was due to
> Italian Catholic circles on one hand and to Italian official
> racialist circles on the other hand, and, in any case, not to the
> German side.
>
> Evola's sympathies for Himmler's views are well-known to the Anglo-
> Saxon readers of Evola, who, on the strength of the few excerpts of
> Evola's political work which have been translated into English,
> think that this Italian author was very critical of Hitler's views
> on race. Evola was indeed very critical of them, as shown by the
> chapter twelve of 'Il Mito del sangue', 'Adolf Hitler's racism'.
> However, Evola's all-out criticisms of it should not hide the few
> elements which those two different conceptions have in common. For
> instance, in 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', France is described in
> terms which should ring a bell to those who are familiar with 'Mein
> Kampf': as a "decadent, Negerised and Semiticised" country,
> the "first source of the modern insurrection of the slaves". The
> leader of the Third Reich, just like Evola, was aware that 'pure
> races' no longer exist, not to mention that, a few years before
> Evola, he was also aware of the "practical and political advantages
> which the use of the terms "race", "racial purity", "defence of
> race", entails" ("Sintesi di dottrina della razza"). The idea,
> developped by Evola in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', according
> to which, in any people, there are different racial elements and,
> once the different racial elements present in a given people are
> determined and its higher and creative element is found, it is a
> matter of defining it and of strengthening it, can be found roughly
> in the second part of 'Mein Kampf'.
>
> Thompkins&Cariou