>This is the influence of Guenon I think, and Traditionalists as a whole. It tends to go universal when a proper racial awareness and necessity of racial cleanliness shows the limits of the theory of the Aryan spirit. Evola made a mistake here when he claimed that a pure race could fail to become the host of Aryan spirits. During his life it seems that he reluctantly admitted of the importance of the racial elements, perhaps when he was courting the NS intellectuals and leaders.
>That is the problem when an ex-Christian Latin man gets too close to Sufism, Hinduism and the like, he quickly obfuscates the racial element. Evola put too much emphasis on the supernatural aspect and not enough on the white race.
>I do not agree with the idea that certain philosophical and practical burdens and limits in one's works automatically translates into being controlled opposition. That's rather simplistic and fairly American.
It's because such supernatural metaphysics do lead to egalitarianism. It can be summed up in this rhetoric: "If people aren't really made up of organs and blood, and they're actually spiritual beings, then they're all equal". When Evola read Guenon etc., his path after that would've actually been quite natural. It's not because of this that he was controlled opposition, but it's because of this that he was a shill.
>This is absolutely not the Golden Age spoken of in Tradition. It is not about an expression applied to a more or less recent past. It's about a very distant time when... and this is where it gets just wild... (won't discuss it here)
No, this applies to the golden age as a concept entirely, notwithstanding the time period. It absolutely is the same as this idea of "Merry Old England", whether said golden age was 6000 years ago or 600 years ago.
>I'd be curious to know about your sources. Please provide them. If you're right it would explain a lot of things.
About him funding a synagogue:
Franklin and the jews (don't take this as an explicit approval of the website, it just offers good information about Franklin)
None of these match up with Franklin's line of thinking in the "Franklin Prophecy", and nobody knew about it before the 1920s (otherwise, it would've been documented). Thus, said document is a forgery.
>I'm talking about the usual topic of what are Good Jews, do they exist, what to do with/of them, etc.
Short answer, they don't. Long answer, so many jews are bad that you cannot deny that they're all a problem, withstanding both their typical usury and then the sexual degeneracy their race is obsessed with; no other race is more steeped in fetishism, homosexuality, and pedophilia as the jewish community. Nevertheless, this is about Rockwell, and Rockwell clearly accepted a subversive jew into his party.
>A CO that exposes all the enemies of the White people is a very weird and stupid form of CO.
It's the other way around. Controlled opposition (to jews/other anti-whites) implies that they're supposed to be a group that opposes jews, but in reality is controlled and kept in check by the. If it doesn't expose the jews, it's not opposition at all, it's just another regular tool.
>I'm not too clear on what he meant by Citizens but it's implied that he sees the Hebrews as such. Although it requires a bit of acrobatics to jump to the conclusion that he equated Jews with "free white men of good character", although it could very well be possible.
Simply put, because they're citizens, they were seen as free white men of good character. This was just months after the act was passed, so there wasn't anything vague about US law like there was a few decades later.
>Today they do.
Here's the famous icon of Washington in a masonic apron. You can clearly see the same Solomonic imagery used in this image as is used in lodges today, thus it isn't a modern thing. Freemasonry was as bad during Washington's time as it is today.
>That's Jewish liberalism. A certain amount of liberties granted to the individual, especially so as to counter the power of the government, assuming all is done within the scope of building a white society, is fairly liberal too.
Which is enlightenment liberalism as a whole. Naturally, it leads to people being able to justify degeneracy because free speech allows them to do so. It's really odd you're defending this despite at the same time defending fascism, considering the latter was specifically created as an anti-liberal anti-communist ideology.
Nope. First offender: using "based" which is itself negroid slang. Second offender: saying "based niggers" which implies that negroids can be good and allied to a sane pro-white movement, even when they're black supremacists that openly see whites as devils.