Is this guy worth giving a read?
General alternative philosophers ((both left and right)) thread
He's fucking based.
>>1332338
I would like to read his work desu, but non of my local bookstores have it. Are there any other tradtionalist works like his?
That reminds me, do someone have the chart of stages of enlightenment were after fascism, tradtionalism is the final stage?
>>1332427
If you go to a good university they might have some of his books in your library. If not his works are widely available online if you just search [x title] pdf or whatever.
>>1332427
Would you say Oswald Spengler counts as a traditionalist?
He thinks history goes in circles rather than a straight line, which is an idea i think many traditionalist s share.
If anyone can attest to good translations (this is always an issue with non-English writers/thinkers, esepcially alternative ones) that would be bomb
In terms of traditionalism I've had Rene Gueno highly recommended but i have not read him myself
>>1332427
>>1332456
this is the order I read Evola's works in, definitely helps to have some background in these systems even if his works on Buddhism, Hermeticism, etc. are supposed to be introductory
Ride The Tiger (pretty good overview of his concept of the Absolute, one's relation to the Transcendent and his Self/Being, etc.)
https://www.amazon.com/Ride-Tiger-Survival-Manual-Aristocrats/dp/0892811250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466891970&sr=8-1&keywords=ride+the+tiger
Doctrine of Awakening (too based)
https://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Awakening-Attainment-Self-Mastery-According/dp/0892815531/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466892052&sr=8-1&keywords=doctrine+of+awakening
The Royal Art (very thick with terminology but a great summation of concepts you'll find present in his other works and many other esoteric systems)
https://www.amazon.com/Hermetic-Tradition-Symbols-Teachings-Royal/dp/0892814519/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=51MInPiFqRL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR104%2C160_&refRID=K39PVY8ET7M7TE7QV2PN
The Yoga of Power https://www.amazon.com/Yoga-Power-Tantra-Shakti-Secret/dp/0892813687/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=61QSDC2FZZM1MC5Q7NDF
Introduction to Magic (so fucking based, just the smartest and most evocative writings on initiatic metaphysics, the nature of the Self and reality and all that jazz I've ever read)
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Magic-Rituals-Practical-Techniques/dp/0892816244/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=VXSEZA1Q1C313N8P9F4W
>tfw you haven't called modern man out on his bullshit for 15 minutes
If anyone has kindle unlimited, a few of his works on up for free like 'Metaphysics of War' and 'Mystery of the Grail'.
I'm reading against the modern world now. Wish I had started with a different man. Interesting man and perspective, he doesn't have a objective, logical basis for his beliefs.
>>1332595
>muh empirical proofs
did you expect to find photos from archaelogical excavations to prove his hyperborean "hypothesis"?
you're reading evola for the entirely wrong reasons
>>1332338
feels > reals
>>1332595
Jesus Christ at least read Plato first good god.
He's pretty based.
>>1332451
not necessarily.
He's a fatalist. He works a lot with the idea of fate and destiny, as conceptualized by Goethe.
If anything, from reading his work you're bound to get a somewhat stoic outlook
read spengler, nietzsche, and rene guenon before reading Evola, then his meme trilogy: revolt against the modern era, man among the ruins, ride the tiger (in that order preferably)
>>1333671
Nobody actually reads men among ruins. The new trilogy should be Path of Cinnabar, Revolt, Ride the Tiger.
I don't get why he is so interesting. His psychology is so obvious from reading his work.
You're dealing with someone who is clearly suffering from massive amounts of depression and anomie from society, and tries to mask it in some kind of heroic "overcoming" adventure, just like Nietzsche did.
>>1333804
Because I suffer from the same things anon.
>>1333807
Then you should see a shrink and get help anon.
>>1333807
So you will fetishize a life that you will never actually live and pretend it makes you a man?
>>1333823
I'm preparing myself to die in a world that I don't belong in anon.
>>1333779
Good list, Path of Cinabar is very under rated
>>1332427
Part of his works are on Youtube. If you like audiobooks,go for it.
>Revolt against the modern world
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHG_aAvxl-na1bPH-sexeuJSu4AelZ26
> Men amongst the ruin
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS8UswvQNy5EztQ_9oUSHhbM7QY-pxOxB
>Ride the tiger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go22wxBDvj0
>>1332427
Here it is.
>>1333804
>le depression
Lol no
>>1335043
If you are critical of something, you must be insane and depressed. I mean how can anyone not like modernity and its vibrant """culture"""???
>>1332451
He's not a traditionalist, but traditionalists often cite his work.
>>1333804
As a youth he was depressed, but exposure to buddhism changed that. He's actually a pretty jolly dude, and not quite as "serious" as his books make him sound. See vid related:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QiCtdi5nCoA
>>1332427
A /pol/itician created a website that hosts most of his works.
https://juliusevola.co/library/
>>1333804
You also have to account for the fact that he was born a nobleman in a time when being a nobleman still meant something, and considered his class to be the core component of his identity, then lived to see the rise of fascism and socialism strip away all the significance that this had had in his youth. Then he was blown up by a bomb in WWII that left him paralyzed (and apparently impotent as well). He spent the next 30 years in a wheelchair watching Communism spreading across the world as the hippie revolution swept away the last of the vestiges of the moral/cultural paradigm he held dear.
If that wouldn't make someone bitter, I don't know what would.
>>1335212
He really wasn't very bitter tho. He had been advocating apoliteia since pretty early on in his career.
>>1333855
It's also the best place to start imo.
>some idealist philosopher says something that makes Evola butthurt
>at this point most idealist philosophy was not available in Italian
>so Evola teaches himself German, reads all the major idealist philosophy, and familiarises himself with all idealist terminology
>just so he could get back at idealist philosophers in an argument
Nobody can deny he's a genius but he must have had some form of severe autism too.
threadly reminder
>>1335381
Jesus Christ I fucking laughed out loud. Where is this from?
>>1335427
Intro to Men Among the Ruins
>>1335348
Does anyone know how many languages Ebola spoke fluently? Just going by intuition alone, he knew Italian, French, German, Pali, and Sanskrit pretty well.
>>1332456
>Rene Gueno
holy fuck, his fwhr ratio is off the charts bad
>>1332338
Have any other philosophers or politicians attacked fascism for being too democratic?
He's still right.
>>1335544
Evola did not attack Fascism for being democratic, if anything it was precisely because of its totalitarianism that he opposed it
>>1335564
Maybe democratic isn't the word, but didn't he dislike how fascism represented the interests of the collective populace rather than a feudal elite? It emerges from the liberal principles he despised.
Visibility is a trap.
>>1335609
Most of his body of work is correct.
>>1335568
Fascist parties (especially in Italy) emerged from the futurist movement, which was itself the most extreme wing of the progressive movement.
While it eventually took on the trappings of traditionalism, with all of the aesthetic references to the Roman empire, the core of fascist policies remained materialistic. Evola saw it as a sort of fraud; just another flavor of leftist progressivism concealing itself as a right-wing alternative.
I'm reading Revolt right now, on page 30 something
is this something you even can get through if you have only a vague familiarity with buddhism/ hinduism and so on?
It's all references to stories i have not read
and references to ideas within religions I do not understand really.
>>1335427
To be fair, Evola really was a notorious sorcerer in Italy's occult circles in the 1920s, before he settled into the slightly more respectable role of a reactionary philosopher.
It was partly this reputation that lead the SS to hire him to hunt down Freemasons.
>>1335678
Evola definitely writes in the context of assuming his audience also has the same frame of reference that he does. He never wrote to introduce concepts to new minds, he wrote to expand the understanding one already has of them
>>1335691
Besides that, did Evola ever have a real job?
>>1335707
Nope. NEET for life.
But he was rich as fuck thanks to his family fortune and plenty of cultists to leach off of.
>>1335707
He was a metaphysical wizard. Why would he ever have a "real job"?
>>1335678
Start with Rene Guenon
>>1335725
He didn't have much in the way of possessions though. He would even give away his books when he was done with them. He lived very frugally.
>>1335781
what books?
Wikipedia has this list on the Guenon page
Metaphysical core
The exposition of metaphysical doctrines, which forms the cornerstone of Guénon's work, consists of the following books:[41]
Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines,
Man and His Becoming according to the Vedânta,
The Multiple States of the Being,
Symbolism of the Cross,
Oriental Metaphysics.
>>1335810
This looks pretty good to me. I've read them all with the exception of the the Symbolism of the Cross, because I'm saving to read together with Esotericism of Dante, his other great "Christian" work.
>>1335810
Start with Crisis of the modern world, and reign of quantity
introduction to the study of hindu doctrines is good but difficult.
>>1335212
>he was blown up by a bomb in WWII
That was entirely his own fault. The crazy bastard would literally go walking around the streets during bombardments as some sort of test of his power.
>>1336409
That's metal
To the 2 guys on /his/ who have actually read Evola and know what he's talking about:
So what do you guys make of the initiatic view that there is no guaranteed immortality after death, only a unique co-incidence of consciousness and body (and from there one secures his immortality through spiritual askesis and aligning oneself to the transcendent as opposed to identification with only what is ephemeral and earthly) compared to the notion found in Ride the Tiger that one made a prenatal decision to experience this particular life?
What's going on? Did his views evolve? Can these perspective be reconciled? Did he never buy the first view in the first place? pls respond
>>1336471
Ride the Tiger, like most of Evola's later works, isn't really that good and is not consistent with his earlier writings.
After Evola became a cripple, he began to drift away from his adherence to a heroic/initiatic worldview in favor of one that emphasized a purely internal personal struggle and transformation. One could assume this was an effort to avoid the inevitable conclusion deriving from his earlier view, that his own worth was now diminished by his weakened state. What started out as contempt for modernity and materialism in his earlier writings became a sort of defeatism and rejection of this life in his later writing.
The reading list for understanding Evola's philosophy in its purest state begins and ends with Revolt Against the Modern World.
>>1336542
Interesting, I guess I forgot the emphasis he placed on the physical aspect of spirituality.
So it goes from an inner and outer struggle towards the Absolute to just an inner one?
Thank you anon that clears that up. I always thought the initiatic, heroic view was much more intuitive and made perfect sense. The prenatal stuff is beautiful but Idk sounds a little too good to be true for me, I hope I'm wrong
>>1336471
Let me try this.
First of all neither Evolar nor Guenon (nor Coomaraswamy, a less famous, but not lesser, traditionalist) believed in reincarnation. They maintained that this was misinterpretation of the ancient texts. On the part o Coomaraswamy, he believed that the doctrine was not shruti or scriptural. On the part of Guenon, it was metaphysically untenable (see l'Erreur Spirite). And on the part of Evola, it was due to admixture and mutual influence between the ancentral Aryan solar and celestial religions with lesser, demonic, lunar, matriarchical and cthonic fertility cults, such as those of the aboriginal peoples that inhabited Greece and India before the arrival of the Aryans. These cults mantained that the soul underwent cycles of death and rebirth analogous to the cycles of nature and agriculture. On the contrary, the ancient Aryan doctrine maintained that the soul or the true self never undergoes these kinds of passions, but remains forever impassive and exempt. It is only the false ego that identified itself with the ultimately illusory phenomena of nature that experiences suffering, death and rebirth. (Plotinus has a remarkably similar view of the soul, but let's leave that for another time.)
>being chained by the ideologies carried from the beliefs and cultures of the past
>>1336636
Now what does it mean to say that the soul makes a prenatal decision to experience this particular life (this and none other!)? According to Guenon, the ultimate reality must be understood as the sum total of all possibilities. Nothing can be said or thought about with certainty, because that would mean to limit it and thus to fail to grasp it. It is above every possible determination, good, evil, even being (thus it is above Aristotle's and Aquina's God, that is "merely" being). Only by means of the via negativa or apophatic theology can it be approached by the human intellect. Very well, one of these infinite possibilities is the possibility of being, and one of the infinite possibilities of being is the possibility of manifestation, and one of manifestation, that of manifestation, material manifestation, and of it, mineral, plant, animal, etc. down to the individual manifestation at a particular time and space. Hence why, for Guenon, it wouldn't make sense for the same individual to return in another body, because the already fulfilled his possibility of manifestation in the full scheme of things. And hence the mystery of the "prenatal decision" or a "will" of the soul to be only this particular individual,at a particular space and time, with his particular sufferings and joys, and no one else, a sort of Nietzschean amor fati:
>What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' [The Gay Science, §341]
Hence why you must be content and love this life and nothing else, to accept it stoically, because it's the only one you will ever have.
>>1336665
I understand this, my point was why would Evola turn his back on this truth? Unless he meant prenatal in some wonky "I must affirm this life wholly and utterly as it is the only life for which the "I" of this life will exist". In that sense, I get it
>>1336665
Now you may ask, what is the difference, then, between being an ascetic and a hedonist, a nun and a whore, a noble and an ignoble person, if everyone is just fulfilling his or her role in the total manifestation? Here we enter into the realm of mystery, and I don't claim to know the answer. Guenon alludes to the possibility of passive, unconscious absortion into the ultimate reality and an active, conscious unification with it (Plotinian henosis). Evola seemed to think that one could retain one's individuality after "death", but one had to earn it. Hence heroic struggle, ascesis, etc. The Buddhist Heart Sutra says that the ultimate secret is that there is no Samsara and no Nirvana, no purity or impurity, no liberation and no bondage. Evola was familiar with this text, and he quoted a similar saying by the esoteric Hashashin sect: "nothing exists; everything is permited."
>>1336716
>my point was why would Evola turn his back on this truth?
I don't understand, why do you think he turned his back on this truth?
>>1336751
I mean the truth of having to earn one's immortality, if he also believed in his prenatal soul. But your posts are clearing it up. Good stuff.
>>1336757
According to the Vedanta there is no difference between the soul (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). The many individual "souls" are like refraction of a single light through a prism. But could one of those colorful lights be worthy keeping? Aristotle thought (in a very Vedantic fashion, I might add) that there was a particular and a universal intellect, and that the particular intellect *might* survive the dissolution of the body. Similarly, the Stoics (again very Hinduistically) believed that nothing besides Zeus was immortal, and that everything was destroyed and recreated anew in periodical universal conflagrations, everything except Zeus or the Logos and maybe, just maybe, the soul of the "sage". But who was the Stoic sage? Well I don't need to teach /his/ what the Stoics believed: the Stoic sage is practically the Western equivalent of a Buddhist monk or Hindu ascetic.
>>1336796
I understand all this actually. It's good to know there are erudite anons on /his/ like you but I still don't understand why Evola believes in a prenatal individuality while espousing the path of askesis in other books, besides just chalking it up to an evolution of views
>>1336833
>erudite
Lol thanks. I honestly think prenatal individuality is a metaphor.
>>1336847
Ah gotcha, another way of saying armor fati, cool brah thanks
>>1336650
Tbh didn't Butthole-Aids man say we should try to implement the good things from earlier parts of history?
>>1334505
please stop saying libertarians are right-wing proprietarians
t. libertarians
>>1335564
Ehh most traditional conservatives see democracy as the basis of totalitarianism ( Evola included). Totalitarianism is just the logical conclusion of democracy when you realize that there is no " will of the people" in an organic society to organize it around. Totalitarianism is about fixing this by forging a concrete "will of the people" through political control.
>>1337739
Except Evola, what other philosophers made a case for(or at least endorsed) traditional despotism?
I'm a deep admirer of Russia solely for that reason, since in each stage of its history(Byzantine autocracy(Ivan the Terrible) -> Illuminist Autocracy(Peter the Great) -> Stalinism -> Putinism) it only changed forms while keeping its despotic essence.
>>1335707
>Didn't Gandalf have a "real job"
>>1337746
Carl Schmitt and Joseph De Maistre really nailed it on that front. Check out Schmitt's "Political Theology" and De Maistre's political works, especially "Considerations on France".
>>1337866
Thank you, good anon.
>>1332338
I thoroughly enjoyed Ride the Tiger and I'm not even that much into philosophy. I've been meaning to pick up Revolt against the Modern World, but I haven't had much time to read lately.
I especially enjoy his treatises on the iron guard and his reports from when he went to their headquarters
It's amazing how some shitlibs think he was "against fascism", they have no fucking clue whatsoever what they're even talking about and have read none of his pieces and the kind of topics he dealed with. The guy was an aryanist through and through.
I have an archive of his most important works saved but it's all in german so yeah
>>1338093
Well ,he did explicitly and publicly call himself an "anti-fascist" in fascist Italy. The Romanian Iron Guard hit all the right chords for him because they had a more mystical,virile warrior mentality than any of the other "fascist" movements. He thought that German Nationalism Socialism's emphasis on biological race made them pleb tier, but he did what he could to try to salvage these kinds of movements from their democratic and collectivist foundations to something more fitting to the perennial tradition. His "aryanism" was all about a mystical orientation, it had nothing to do with German racial theories.
>>1338146
>GUYS HE WAS ACTUALLY A RACIST ARYANIST COMMIE
Have you taken your meds yet today pal?
Evola was natsoc in spirit. His writings are literally and unmistakably permeated with this spirit, deal with it
>>1338158
He really didn't care about biological race all that much compared to "spiritual race" though m8
Evola was a proponent of actual physical racial purity aswell. All this "DUDE IT WAS JUST MEANT SPIRITUALLY" nonsense from shitlibs is dead wrong:
"Preservation of biological racial purity is one of the most favorable conditions intended, to preserve its original power and purity also the"spirit"of a race. Also, the health and integrity of the body form the guarantee for the full effect of his higher skills in particular. [...]“
>>1338176
Why would you accuse liberals of misinterpreting Evola? Liberals wouldn't give a fat rat's ass about him, because he's an inconsequential authoritarian thinker.
>>1332451
Traditionalists are often fans of his work.
Speaking for myself (Evolian Traditionalist), I find that reading Spengler gives me a sort of "perspective" that grounds the headiness of Evola.
Contributing to the thread, Guillame Faye and Alaine De Benoist are french "New Right" thinkers who have made interesting contributions to the continuum that Traditionalism exists in.
>>1338208
Yet just as the alt right, they are kosher out of pragmatism, thus their works are from the very start if not outright intellectually dishonest, at least 'incomplete' in their outlook.
Speaking of such, I'd recommend Mircea Eliade. He had the same thing going on, borrowing from the likes of Evola and Guenon while trying to maintain his academic integrity(which in his case is not as bad given the 'technical' nature of his works).
>>1333839
I felt that so hard it hurt.
>>1338158
National Socialism is closer to Communism than Evolian traditionalism. You actually make him out to be more "left wing" than he actually is by linking him to NS and national Socialism. Why don't we take a look at his own words.
This is from Evola's Self Defense Statement when he was accused of "Glorifying Fascism" and trying to bring it back.
"Thus, I countered the racism that was materialistic and vulgarly anti-semitic with a spiritual racism, introducing the concept of 'the race of the spirit' and developing an original doctrine on that basis."
"Now, in regard to myself this is absolutely not the case. I have defended, and still defend, 'fascist ideas' not inasmuch as they are 'fascist' but in measure that they revive ideas superior and anterior to fascism".
" I am opposed to totalitarianism, counterposing to it the ideal of an organic, differentiated State, and considering 'fascist hierarchism' as a deviation...totalitarianism represents a wrong direction and the abortion of the need for a virile and organic political unity: 'Hierarchy is not hierarchism -- the latter an evil that is trying to flourish in a minor mode today -- and the organic conception conception has nothing to do with sclerotic statolatry or a leveling centralization... I oppose the totalitarian solution, in which there is not a spiritual, super-elevated, and transcendent principle, but rather the brutal political will to tyrannically enslave and unify the culture, of which we see the ultimate result in Sovietism."
" Concerning the problem of sovereignty, I reject every demagogic, dictatorial solution. The true authority--as I say--cannot be that of "a tribune or chief of the people, holder of a simple, unformed spiritual power devoid of any chrism from above, resting his precarious prestige on the irrational energies of the masses."
National Socialism is mostly about crude biological racism, collectivism, and tapping into the "irrational energies of the masses" with demagogery.
>>1338228
Not that guy, but the description of leadership he gives there sounds vaguely like the "emergent leadership" that anarchists are so fond of, in which a leader emerges naturally as a course of their capabilities, rather than through political imposition.
>>1338228
>" I am opposed to totalitarianism, counterposing to it the ideal of an organic, differentiated State, and considering 'fascist hierarchism' as a deviation...totalitarianism represents a wrong direction and the abortion of the need for a virile and organic political unity: 'Hierarchy is not hierarchism -- the latter an evil that is trying to flourish in a minor mode today -- and the organic conception conception has nothing to do with sclerotic statolatry or a leveling centralization... I oppose the totalitarian solution, in which there is not a spiritual, super-elevated, and transcendent principle, but rather the brutal political will to tyrannically enslave and unify the culture, of which we see the ultimate result in Sovietism."
Which falls in line perfectly with Italian Fascism given that from their perspective the totalitarian state was a means of reinstating the organic state, not an end in itself.
In regards to German National Socialism I agree, though. It was born out of a sterile Prussian culture that was built on top Protestantism.
>>1338219
I definitely have to agree with you in that their work is incomplete due to their unwillingness to address the "Root Cause".
I'll be sure to read Eliade, Thank you for the recommendation.
>>1338283
Root cause?
>>1338283
Most welcome, anon. Also, if you aren't already familiar with Gornahoor, you should definitely check it out:
http://www.gornahoor.net
>>1338291
The fact that those 'new right' thinkers go out of their way to whitewash their philosophical works from subjects such as jewry or even a more nuanced discussion of race and nation out of political considerations.
>>1338301
Gornahoor's fucking great. anon do you know any other traditionalist blogs/sites of that quality? I've already read nearly everything on Lumine Boreali
>>1338949
There's a relatively new site that's decent, although I wouldn't put it on the same scale with Gornahoor.
https://phalx.com
>>1338974
Also I'd recommend checking out Boyd Rice's stuff. He isn't a philosopher by any stretch, but he has dabbled with the esoteric and the political and his life reads like a modern day d'Annunzio.
>>1338979
"When confronting ideas / beliefs, bring an open-mind and critical thinking. Extract that which is most beneficial to you, and ignore the rest. All these books contain an element of pure gold, and varying degrees of lead. I leave it to you to sort-out which is which."
http://www.boydrice.com/readinglist.html
Awesome, thank you
>>1334505
>stages of slavery
>>1332338
>is a guy trying to turn occultism into a political system worth giving a read
No, go read something more substantial and better thought out, like the Daily Mail.
>>1338238
The italian fascism was built on the idea that us italians are meant for greatness, we wuz romans and sheiiiiit, throw away all other people and let us great italians rule.
Evola speaks that nationality, genetics, race, whatever is irrelevant, and the power of the spirit/mind is what matters. He discriminates against people with low mana pools, not against brownies or slavs or whatnot.
Basically no, he didn't fit. And he has said himself that italian fascists are useful idiots at best. He never joined the party as far as I recall.
>>1339026
>what I said
>what you understood
Also, if that's what you understand of his racialism, then you either haven't read enough Evola or you haven't understood him properly.
>>1339029
>no u
Nice argument.
>>1336650
>IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR
>>1337708
Nationalism isn't one such good thing. When has it ever helped, as opposed to the many times it created conflict?
>>1332338
>Is this guy worth giving a read?
No, unless you like Indian magic. He's generally pointless, though some of his ideas are cool.
>General alternative philosophers ((both left and right)) thread
Most "alternative philosophers" are retarded hacks. Foucault is good but all other post-modernists are trash.
>>1339043
>my favorite hack is good, other hacks are bad
Anon, compose yourself.
>>1336665
>Very well, one of these infinite possibilities is the possibility of being, and one of the infinite possibilities of being is the possibility of manifestation, and one of manifestation, that of manifestation, material manifestation, and of it, mineral, plant, animal, etc. down to the individual manifestation at a particular time and space.
sooo does this line of reasoning have any bearing on the idea of the incarnation (of Jesus Christ)?
>>1339031
see
>>1338195
And Evola was not le esoteric libertarian you envision him as. His elitist individualism is a way of coping in an age of decay, not what he envisioned as the role of the 'aristocrat of the soul' in greater times.
Also do note that he doesn't '''discriminate''' against anyone since all have their place in the traditional hierarchy.
>tfw evola will never write dense, based introductions to kabbalah, Sufism, Neoplatonism, and theurgy
>>1339054
I find it even more sad that he didn't write on Orthodoxy, given that Codreanu left a lasting impression on him.
>>1339054
he discusses kabbalah quite a bit in the metaphysics of sex
>>1339065
Isn't that some Jew stuff, anon?
>>1339089
Evola respected the kabbalistic worldview
>>1339104
Why did he if he was anti-Jew?
>>1339117
He had more a problem with exoteric forms of Judaism, and while he didn't like Der Juden for what they represent (as a mercantile class of people blind to the metaphysical and only concerning themselves with material gain), he was wary of making them some monolithic enemy because railing against some external enemy is not the attitude the traditional man should adopt towards life. Not to mention the Jan enemy is always just a visible manifestation of a principle, anyways, such as spiritual degeneration, decadence, etc
>>1339117
he wasn't anti-jew in the racial sense but in the spiritual sense. kaballah is mostly influenced by things like platonism and hermeticism so its not spiritually jewish
by spiritually jewish he means something close to nietzsche's assessment of judaism.
>>1335068
>gay jews
>>1339202
tel aviv is one of the most gay friendly cities in the world
>>1339054
Does anyone know when he discusses neoplatonism at all? And if he didn't, are there any other works on neoplatonism by Traditionalist writers?
>>1339250
Introduction to Magic mentions Plotinus a number of times to support some initiatic concepts. There's only a few references to Plotinus in his other works though
Unfortunately an Evolan exegesis of Neoplatonism will never happen
Any other thinkers like with the ability to make esoteric concepts as evocative as Evola does?
>>1340039
But they'll never be written by Evola himself with his trademark prose
So, what should I, someone who would surely wind up at the bottom of Evola's conceived social order gain from supporting his ideals?
>>1340363
Everything. The only thing separating the top from the bottom is whether or not they have an inborn or acquired will for the unconditioned
>>1340373
That doesn't make sense.
>>1340386
I'm saying you're n doomed at the bottom, the only thing separating the top from the bottom is whether or not they choose to live for the transcendent
>>1340363
If you are spiritually base and plebean, and cannot conceive of anything greater than bovine material comforts, then nothing. If you have an aristocratic disposition oriented towards the transcendent, then everything.
>>1340363
I was going to quote a passage in the intro of Ride the Tiger that says who Evola thinks is a true aristocrat. But the true answer is, nothing. You'll gain nothing. Even Evola gained nothing, and on the contrary even lost a great deal. He could have easily become a stereotypical 20th century post modern philosopher, spouting nonsense, if he wanted to, and perhaps even obtained fame and renown, who knows; he chose rather to upset everyone, from the Nazis to the merchants, and ride the tiger of modernity, and even write about some fringe topics such as magic. Whatever he was looking for, studying alchemy and yoga and puting his life at risk, climbing mountains and walking among the ruins of a town during a allied bombing, whatever he was looking for he found it to be more worthy of his energies than seeking to "gain something". And he gained nothing, not in a quantifiable sense at least. So I guess what you have to do is read it yourself and see if it resonates with you.
This reminds me of a passage of the Gospel of Luke:
>"Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 17:33
>>1340513
Fair enough. I'm sure I'll check it out at some point. Thanks for your time.
>>1334505
>about the importance of inequality, hierarchy and moral authority
Pure, unadulterated autism. Traditionalists like to thing of themselves as the nobility, when in reality they would certainly be serfs, as they seem to so ready be willing to submit to their autismal servile instincts
>>1332338
He has some salvageable ideas.
Guénon is better though. As is Frithjof Schuon. Who is a much more faithful spiritual successor to Guénon than Evola.
>>1332338
Spengler is nice. I also like Giovanni Gentile.
>>1340513
This is the only true answer
>>1342226
There's nothing wrong with with serving in an organic society, oriented by higher ideals. It's the democratic man that resents his superiors.
>>1338176
>Liberals following Evola in any way, shape or form.
>>1342226
No, as a Reactionary, I realize that I would be a commoner in the ideal societies envisioned by the Perrenialists.
And Personally, I would like working living a simple life with the spiritual growth a Traditionalist system would value.
>>1337866
De maistre is truly based, too bad a lot of his works haven't been translated in english.
>>1342226
If I accept my status as the working-class commoner in today's society, why would I have any delusions of grandeur in a traditionalist hierarchy?
>>1342730
As evidenced by the fact that democratic society grew out of such society, I think they resented it too.
>>1344586
Taught to resent it by a small, but powerful elite that brought the downfall of their precursors.
>>1344590
Yes, I'm sure those starving peasants had no reason to resent their current state before some liberal philosophers started writing. It's not like peasant revolts were a thing well before the enlightenment.
>>1344598
Not as common as you might think and not directed against the social order, but against the policies of particular nobles.
>>1344605
Because the social order wasn't ready to decay yet.
Reactionism is the most idiotic ideology ever conceived by man. Because they aim to put the worms of modernism back in the can without understanding that it was the material conditions of society, not its ideals that drew people to abandon feudal structures, as feudal structures were created out of the material conditions of the late classical period.
Also because its adherents are mostly anomie driven manchildren who fetishize a masculinity they'll never possess.
>>1344625
>Reactionism is the most idiotic ideology ever conceived by man.
Statement which doesn't necessarily conflict with a traditionalist view of things such as the one of Spengler(see his Pompey quote) or of an older Evola.
>the material conditions of society,
The only thing material that led to the downfall of traditional society was the corruption or even outright undermining of the traditional elite by a developing bourgeoisie.
>abandon feudal structures
Evola saw the potential of Italian Fascism not as a possible return to some sort of (neo-)feudal society as feudal structures in themselves are not a requirement of a traditional society.
I might be somewhat of a traditionalist, but I really can't tell you what a contemporary or near future traditional society would look like, but it is the essence that creates for itself a fitting form. To use your own terms, my admiration for civilizations long past is found not within "material", but spiritual condition.
>Also because its adherents are mostly anomie driven manchildren who fetishize a masculinity they'll never possess.
That's more of a symptom of a subculture appropriating an already niche author.
>>1344625
>Reactionism is the most idiotic ideology ever conceived by man
Oh really? I wonder where you're come from...
>Marxist drivel
Literally the most failed, poverty-inducing, backwardness-inducing, and mass-murdering ideology ever imagined.
Also because its adherents are mostly anomie driven manchildren who fetishize a masculinity they'll never possess.
I won't descend to your level responding this.
>>1344625
The fact of the matter is that when people are hungry they'll side with who ever gives them food. Once their base needs are met common people tend rightwards. This is one of the reason why totalitarianism was used during the French Revolution. Once the peasants were fed they were extremely resistant to any of the social changes that the Revolutionaries wanted to make. Same deal with the Bolshevik terror, which was needed because peasants kept joining up with the monarchist armies and rejecting their social initiatives.
Feudalism was abandoned because there was money to be made by the bourgeois in abandoning it and moving towards the abusive conditions we can find during the industrial revolution. Most of the time feudalism was fine and people were living well enough, but the bourgeois took advantage of several rough patches, and the members of the nobility and peasantry who were willing to sell their classes out for personal gain. to set revolutions in motion.
Now the means of production are so radically different that we can never go back. But we can make a return to the localism and personalism that feudalism brought, acting against the modern egalitarian, democratic, and statist totalitarianism that has been on the rise since the French Revolution. In reality modern monarchists/traditionalists/ are stuck with libertarians, secessionists, and post-left anarchists if they want to get anything done. We also are stuck working with third position adherents, since their admixture of traditionalist and socialist elements gives us a means to tap into more populist forces.
No one wants to just return to old forms save the occasional traditionalist internet larper. Evola himself never called for a return to dead political structures, but simply that we make something new that is worthy of the aristocratic spirit of higher peoples.
>>1344723
Not even him but that's a strawman if I ever saw one. All he stated was that material conditions were a moving factor in ushering our societies to modernism.
You're showing us the exact kind of shallow, kneejerk, reactionary behavior he's talking about.
>>1344950
I've heard the opposite said, that in times of uncertainty people tend rightward and to tradition for a sense of stability. And that when their needs are met, they seek freedom. What do you make of this?
>>1344966
Well the dichotomy is wrong. Turning rightward means turning towards freedom. It is the left that uses state power to equalize everyone with force, set up massive social programs that infringe on liberty for the sake of security, and "educate" everyone through massive propaganda programs( public education for example). Rightwing forms of politics and culture are largely about unwritten consensus and holding to the traditions developed by a people throughout a long period of time, and accepts the inequality of men and tries to work with it instead of ignoring it and attempting to blame society for it. It does'nt hold onto egalitarian pipe dreams so the state does'nt have to interfere and force people to level out from their inequalities.
>>1345301
Alternatively, a right wing society uses liberal application of force to ensure that Charles the second stays at the top.
>>1345318
A necessary safeguard so to stop leftist totalitarian dystopias ( led by nation states and supranational organizations like the E.U and U.N) from becoming the norm in society. Likewise, focusing authority in a man means that he has to let people at the bottom mostly do their own thing, personalistic power structures simply don't have the means to engage in totalitarianism. Kings never had the amount of power over their subjects that modern state bureaucrats do. The King's authority was out in the open where the state's authority has the smokescreen of "democratic procedure" obscuring what is really going on and pretending that "the people" are choosing, so they can get away with more and justify massive tyranny in a way no king ever could.
>>1345355
That likely has a lot more to do with the technology they had available, just as the form their government took had a lot to do with similar material conditions. I am nothing but absolutely certain in my conviction that a modern-day monarch in the vein you propose would be another Stalin with different rhetoric.
These men are no more fit to rule, and there's no reason to believe they'd be any better at it (oh but they'd be trained for it! no, they'd be trained to keep their place at the top and would have no actual connection to their subjects) and even less reason to believe they'd be particularly benevolent.
>>1345355
I'm with you on this, but just to play devil's advoce,
>Kings never had the amount of power over their subjects that modern state bureaucrats do.
Every King can have his Oprichnina.
>>1345462
advocate*
Hes a whiney looser defeatist, but a good modern historian if nothing else.
Evola just bitched and moaned, Mussolini was the real deal.
>>1345622
And the eternal kraut came along and ruined everything.
>>1345367
I don't buy it. Obviously technology has allowed us to achieve mass surveillance and propaganda to a degree never seen before. But without the democratic ideology being invoked there is no way people would accept that degree of interference in their lives and traditions.
I do agree that king's aren't inherently better rulers. The institution of monarchy is better than all the alternatives though. You just need a family who feels that the kingdom is actually their families property, and not something temporary for the family to exploit dry and then abandon like how temporary elected officials view it. It is also true that maintaining power is part of what they will be good at, but that is true for all holders of political power.
>>1345462
Those are not as effective or long lasting as modern forms of control over the populous are, "softer" and sneakier means have proven to be much more successfully in controlling people.
Obviously no political system is perfect, it is a matter of choosing which flaws are tolerable to you.
>>1345637
That's what I fancy about authoritarian systems, monarchic or otherwise. You know what you are allowed and what you are not and in that you find true freedom as opposed to the common democratic behavior of discrediting dissidents or even taking one step further and twisting the spirit of the law to punish them where the word of it doesn't cut it.
>>1345637
>But without the democratic ideology being invoked there is no way people would accept that degree of interference in their lives and traditions.
They wouldn't have a choice. Keep in mind that Ivan the Terrible was exactly the kind of monarch you're talking about and he was quite happy to establish secret police.
>I do agree that king's aren't inherently better rulers. The institution of monarchy is better than all the alternatives though. You just need a family who feels that the kingdom is actually their families property, and not something temporary for the family to exploit dry and then abandon like how temporary elected officials view it. It is also true that maintaining power is part of what they will be good at, but that is true for all holders of political power.
Something being someone's property is no guarantee they'll take care of it. As evidenced by every fuck-up monarch that got their shit deposed.
>>1345678
Ivan the Terrible wasn't as bad as portrated today.
What you have to understand is that his harsh actions were justified as to crush a degenerate boyar oligarchy that outlived its usefulness(and was leading Russia to ruin) and instaurate a strong autocracy that has outlived even the Tsardom itself. Not to mention that he also modernized Russia through the adoption of Byzantine law and customs.
He is in a way akin to Vlad Tsepesh in that he was a very harsh, yet just ruler whose cruelty was directed to the local aristocracy that even the peasantry despised.
A Russian saying goes like this, 'better the rule of a harsh Tsar than the council of seven boyars', council which I'd suggest you to look into.
>mysticism
Into the trash it goes.
>>1345731
You're going in circles. On one hand claiming that a monarchy wouldn't be a totalitarian nightmare, on the other claiming the brutal autocracy of past monarchies was absolutely justified. So which is it?
Also, authoritarianism has an incredibly strong correlation with just about every social ill. This has been demonstrated repeatedly with countless studies. You may not like democracy, but they trend towards being vastly more peaceful and prosperous than any autocracy.
>>1345743
>a monarchy wouldn't be a totalitarian nightmare
Which Ivan's Russia wasn't.
>every social ill
As defined by modern standards.
>countless studies
Of a modern inteligentsiya raised by a modern regime of which it is in favor.
>>1345751
>Which Ivan's Russia wasn't.
Only because technology didn't allow it.
>As defined by modern standards.
If a safe, comfortable, and prosperous life isn't a good standard, then I don't want a good standard.
>Of a modern inteligentsiya raised by a modern regime of which it is in favor.
"MODERN ACADEMIA IS JUST KEEPING US TRADITIONALISTS DOWN MAN!"
Hahaha
>>1333804
Psychoanalysis of ideology is a loser's game since it can easily be reflected right back at your ideology.
Also, all this "monarchism doesn't obfuscate its authority" is bunk. They hide behind rhetoric and deception just as much as any other. They just call their rhetoric divine right and such.
>>1345743
Democratic peace is a sham, anon
>>1345756
>Only because technology didn't allow it.
He nor the Tsars following him up to Peter the Great had any sort of totalitarian inclinations. All of his brutality was directed solely towards the high boyars that were trying to usurp his attributes and were putting their own personal interests above the interests of Russia.
>If a safe, comfortable, and prosperous life isn't a good standard, then I don't want a good standard.
None of those are inherent to democracy nor are comfort and prosperity objective standards.
>"MODERN ACADEMIA IS JUST KEEPING US TRADITIONALISTS DOWN MAN!"
We are not talking about physics, chemistry or other hard sciences. What I'm putting into question is not the academic quality of their writings, but the outlook on which they operate.
Also, do note that I do perceive history as being cyclical in nature, so nothing is 'keeping me down'. The degeneration of society is something that I embrace.
>>1345780
Not in all absolute monarchies.
>>1345791
>He nor the Tsars following him up to Peter the Great had any sort of totalitarian inclinations. All of his brutality was directed solely towards the high boyars that were trying to usurp his attributes and were putting their own personal interests above the interests of Russia.
Puh fucking leeze. This is the exact same line Tankies use in defending Stalin. Ivan was a brutal autocrat who murdered his own heir in a fit of paranoid fury, and would have been more so with greater technology.
>None of those are inherent to democracy
There's a strong correlation.
>nor are comfort and prosperity objective standards.
What kind of fucking autist are you that you care about objective standards? I'm not a fucking retard that's willing to sacrifice my ability to live a material life in exchange for metaphysical woowoo.
>but the outlook on which they operate.
This has literally no fucking bearing on their results.
>Also, do note that I do perceive history as being cyclical in nature, so nothing is 'keeping me down'. The degeneration of society is something that I embrace.
Then you're a fucking imbecile. History is neither cyclical nor linear, it simply fucking is.
>Not in all absolute monarchies.
Find me one that said "we will step on you because we can, because we're the strongest shit at the top of the heap" that never engaged in espionage or any form of deceptive behaviour.
>>1345802
>This is the exact same line Tankies use in defending Stalin.
Did I tell you that I also respect Stalin, although I find the communist coating of his regime to be of bad taste? Read Ustryalov if you care about the opinion of a Russian traditionalist that witnessed the death of the Empire and its resurrection as the Soviet Union. :^)
>would have been more so with greater technology
There was no intent, that's what you don't want to accept. He was a pragmatic man, not a sadist. Nor were the majority of absolute monarchs, Russian or otherwise. There is nothing to gain in oppressing for the sake of oppression.
>There's a strong correlation.
There is a strong correlation for a modern, democratic view of what a "safe, comfortable, and prosperous life" is.
>What kind of fucking autist are you that you care about objective standards?
They are not objective standards, they vary from society to society. Both comfort and prosperity are set by the conditions of each society at a given point in time.
>This has literally no fucking bearing on their results.
On the results, no; but the results don't matter. What is bad from the perspective of modern inteligentsiya is matters only for those that share their worldview. I care as much about the writings of modern inteligentsiya as the ones of theologians. Both are just as coherent and truthful, but their authority lies only within their respective worldviews.
>History is neither cyclical nor linear, it simply fucking is.
According to your philosophical outlook.
>never engaged in espionage or any form of deceptive behaviour
Nothing wrong with either of those. Such systems would be inherently pragmatic, not idealistic. They have no 'new man' to design as was the case of the French Revolution, Russian Revolution or what have you.
>>1332451
I would describe Spengler primarily as a pessimist; civilizations will rise and fall, things don't get better. I think he appeals to traditionalists primarily because his theses refute more liberal ideas best exemplified by Martin Luther King's quote that "the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."
>>1345849
>Did I tell you that I also respect Stalin, although I find the communist coating of his regime to be of bad taste?
>Oh, so you're a monstrous piece of shit.
>Read Ustryalov if you care about the opinion of a Russian traditionalist that witnessed the death of the Empire and its resurrection as the Soviet Union. :^)
No I don't care about his opinion.
>There was no intent, that's what you don't want to accept. He was a pragmatic man, not a sadist. Nor were the majority of absolute monarchs, Russian or otherwise. There is nothing to gain in oppressing for the sake of oppression.
He doesn't need to be a sadist to oppress people for talking shit about him, you fucking idiot.
>There is a strong correlation for a modern, democratic view of what a "safe, comfortable, and prosperous life" is.
It's pretty hard to argue with less deaths due to violence, longer lifespans, lower infant morality, lower rates of poverty and starvation, etc. unless you're a fucking reality denying idiot (oh wait, I'm arguing with an Evolaist, HAHAHA).
>They are not objective standards, they vary from society to society. Both comfort and prosperity are set by the conditions of each society at a given point in time.
Nah, comfort is comfort and prosperity is prosperity. Societies have generally sought the same things in either of these.
>On the results, no; but the results don't matter. What is bad from the perspective of modern inteligentsiya is matters only for those that share their worldview. I care as much about the writings of modern inteligentsiya as the ones of theologians. Both are just as coherent and truthful, but their authority lies only within their respective worldviews.
So you admit to outright denying reality when it doesn't suit your worldview?
>According to your philosophical outlook.
Find evidence of this cycle, then we can talk.
Nothing wrong with either of those.
That wasn't the point and had nothing to do with what I said. Holy fuck are you stupid.
>>1345874
>He doesn't need to be a sadist to oppress people for talking shit about him, you fucking idiot.
That is justified when it is an indirect(or outright in some cases) attack on the state as it is defined. In many democratic countries, it is just as illegal to make anti-democratic or anti-constitutional statements. Coercion is used as to safeguard the perpetuation of the system of government no matter the regime.
>less deaths due to violence, longer lifespans, lower infant morality, lower rates of poverty and starvation
None of those being inherent to democracy.
>comfort is comfort and prosperity is prosperity
An Athenian and a Spartan would disagree on what comfort and prosperity mean, just as both would disagree with a modern Greek.
>outright denying reality
Ideology is not reality. The values of modern scholars are not universal nor absolute.
>Find evidence of this cycle, then we can talk.
Read Spengler.
That being said, I won't reply to you anymore, since you are either too closed-minded or ill-willed to carry a civil conversation and instead resort to insults and fallacies.
>>1345892
>That is justified when it is an indirect(or outright in some cases) attack on the state as it is defined. In many democratic countries, it is just as illegal to make anti-democratic or anti-constitutional statements. Coercion is used as to safeguard the perpetuation of the system of government no matter the regime.
And we're back to the other hand "it's totally justified gaiz." Constitutional states tend to have protections for free speech, that while not limitless, offer more than Ivan would have.
>None of those being inherent to democracy.
And again, strongly correlate.
>An Athenian and a Spartan would disagree on what comfort and prosperity mean, just as both would disagree with a modern Greek.
Not as much as you'd think.
>Ideology is not reality. The values of modern scholars are not universal nor absolute.
Reality is reality. Prosperity (outlined in the previous values) is prosperity, you fucking idiot.
>Read Spengler.
Spengler is a hack taken seriously by no one. Also nice appeal to authority.
>That being said, I won't reply to you anymore, since you are either too closed-minded or ill-willed to carry a civil conversation and instead resort to insults and fallacies.
>he was mean to me! better call the wambulance!
There was no fallacy here.
Any king that would need my support or your support to become king isn't worth being king. That's the inherent flaw of traditionalism. If it can't take off regardless of such petty debates, it has no legitimacy. Just like how Marxism fails if it doesn't prove to be historical inevitability.
>>1345652
I'm a pretty far leftist, but I can see the appeal of traditionalism in this respect; it provides a lot more individual freedom, so long as you don't pissed off the king or nobility. One of liberalism's problems is that it is constantly finding new "social problems" and creating new institutions to deal with those problems, and then creates more institutions to deal with the problems of older institutions. Unless we have some sort of leftist anarchy, it inevitably will lead to some type of Brave New World dystopia.
>>1345769
Yeah, I thought the Frankfurt School had a lot of good critiques of capitalism, but they also started the argumentative technique of psychoanalysis of ideology; always struck me as a cop out to diagnose people or society as having some mental illness.
>>1345678
Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and modern America all have done it far more efficiently due to consent from the population though, Ivan had to stop relatively quickly because the peasants weren't having it. If he had an ideology to convince them that it was what they wanted he could have kept it going far longer and made it far more severe.
>Something being someone's property is no guarantee they'll take care of it. As evidenced by every fuck-up monarch that got their shit deposed.
Sure, but the idea has a 20 to 1 success rate. For every 1 interesting fuck up monarch you will learn about in a history course you have 20 boring ones who did a decent to good job.
>>1345780
Legitimacy is not the issue being discussed though, it is about people knowing who exactly is making the decision. In a monarchy it is quite clear, in a bureaucratic state democracy it is obscure. For most of history failure on the monarchs part proved that he no longer had divine right anymore, this was the standard theory in the medieval period. While it is true that divine right can be used the same way as will of the people, these are both ideologies that grant legitimacy. It is not just democratic ideology being discussed though, but also democratic practice.
>>1345743
>Also, authoritarianism has an incredibly strong correlation with just about every social ill. This has been demonstrated repeatedly with countless studies.
For what reason do we have to take these studies seriously ? There are plenty of studies that say that college campus's are a worse place for women than warzones in the Congo. Appealing to the authority of a modern academia that has a significant number of hacks isn't particularly convincing.
>another evola thread ruined by boring stale political bullshit
Politics is cancer
>>1346950
>ruined by boring stale political bullshit
What else did you expect?
>>1345929
Not necessarily but it certainly informs on the authors perspective. Neitzche for instance had his father die at a young age and he became fascinated by good and evil. Is this so surprising in child who doesn't understand why a bad thing happened to him without reason? Neitzche and other philosophers explain the world in their heads more than any other.
