Evola was firmly of the view that we live in a degenerate cycle of humanity.
Any individual who recognises this has only 3 options , submit to the process which is impossible for anyone with any nous (in the true sense of that term) , withdraw (physically, or in the sense of “be in the world but not of it”) or engage in active struggle against it. Codreneau obviously chose the later and given the sheer mass of degenerate or sleeping humans , defeat on the physical plane is inevitable. Given the times such an approach inevitably has a Quixotic character (both noble and absurd). It is also transcendent and in this lies its value for those who choose this option.
As for Georgescu, I wouldn’t call him a precursor so much as a placeholder. He channels some of the spiritual indignation that animated Codreanu, but without the same metaphysical depth or sacrificial clarity. His “anti-Semitism,” while genuine, feels reactive rather than foundational, more a symptom than a worldview. Codreanu didn’t merely oppose; he built. That’s the difference.
Chad, this is remarkable in every way! Thank you
Thank you very much!
My favorite fascist movement
Evola was firmly of the view that we live in a degenerate cycle of humanity.
Any individual who recognises this has only 3 options , submit to the process which is impossible for anyone with any nous (in the true sense of that term) , withdraw (physically, or in the sense of “be in the world but not of it”) or engage in active struggle against it. Codreneau obviously chose the later and given the sheer mass of degenerate or sleeping humans , defeat on the physical plane is inevitable. Given the times such an approach inevitably has a Quixotic character (both noble and absurd). It is also transcendent and in this lies its value for those who choose this option.
I definitely need to learn more about the Romanian Iron Guard!
\o,
Excellent work! You had me looking up “Kehillah” and “oecumenicity”.
A beautiful piece. I am curious to what extent Georgescu is merely the precursor to the next Codreanu figure or "superficially anti-Semtiic".
Thank you very much!
As for Georgescu, I wouldn’t call him a precursor so much as a placeholder. He channels some of the spiritual indignation that animated Codreanu, but without the same metaphysical depth or sacrificial clarity. His “anti-Semitism,” while genuine, feels reactive rather than foundational, more a symptom than a worldview. Codreanu didn’t merely oppose; he built. That’s the difference.