/lit/ - Literature

>>15403979
This picture was in the screencap. It's part of an art movement called "Futurism." You can see the modernist influence.

I spent about a minute total skimming the video, anymore and I think my breakfast would shoot onto my desk having to look at this tranny.
One his worst crimes is mischaracterizing fascism, a common error among lefties who obfuscate the fact that fascism isn't a broad right wing reactionary movement, among there use of words like "demagogue." But that's the way their brains work. They don't realize that fascism has no one "figure," like Marx, that everything branches out from.
Evola wasn't a strict fascist, but I don't really care for him, so I don't know much about him.

Fascism is inherently syncretic. It's actually very modernist in a sense, though it adapts many things and aims to preserve traditions, but not in a strict way. And you can see this in their artwork. It's very modernist. It's also why, when fascists and similar groups come about, they have a "uniform," or something that's a novel identification, and they construct a whole new style in arts and ceremony, with new symbols. This even happened in Britain with Mosley, they came in with uniforms.
This syncretism extends to politics. Fascists are not capitalistic, rather they make "concessions" towards communism is some areas, while rebuffing it in its core thesis. Specifically, the fascists would not simply say all critique against capitalism is wrong. And this is something Evola would align with, that capitalism is subversive, because modern capitalism isn't really a traditional aspect of society. Notice also, that fascism grew out of Socialist wings, not traditional right wing ones, like monarchism. That's where Mussolini got his start, and the fascists tended to feed on them. Hitler even talks about techniques he used to get communists to come to their meetings for recruitment, like using the color red, though he abhorred communists.
That's why fascist states tend to be authoritarian, but not totalitarian. The states have great authority, but they do not exert total control in every aspect of society like communism does. There's still a degree of free market, and even some room for disagreement. Even the Nazis (though not strictly fascist) had some in party disagreements that were left peacefully, which would never be so in the USSR.

So fascists cannot be properly characterized in the heart of the right wing, at all, though I would say it's a right wing system (though the idea of wings is relative), not even in the heart of right wing reactionary politics.