/lit/ - Literature

Guenon led me to Christ, and my oriental wife.

>>18409487
a lot of guys jerk off just to clear their minds from the snares of lust, but post-nut clarity is temporary for them.
However it CAN be long term if you do no-fap seriously, after like a month or two of no-fap you'll have post-nut clarity indefinitely or if you get married it won't be an issue (As much, temptation still can happen)

>>16009969
>Oh noes he wrote a paragraph on the "left hand path" in the early 90's, this means all his work after that should be disregarded ;_;
This is your mind on low IQ everybody

>>15870568

bump

>>15499999
Fascism was Modern and dealt with the concept belonging to the Enlightenment philosophy. It is absolutely wrong: the Modernity is evil and falsehood. It was Modern political theory. Much better than other modern political theories, but still modern. Essentially. In all its aspects that were non-Modern, anti-Modern and Post-Modern it was not wrong.
It was eurocentric. Any ethnic group (we-group) is ethnocentric. It is quite normal. But to be eurocentric in the Modern Europe is the same as to be anti-European, because the european Modernity is not European at all. Being eurocentric in Modern Europe and against all other (non-European) societies judged retarded and sub-human means to be anti-traditional. The appeal to the return to the european (German, indo-aryan) roots was quit legitimate and good. But opposition of the deep identity of Europe to the identities of other societies (much less modernized than Germany of XX century) was absolutely wrong and unjustifiable.
It was based on little nationalism. So Germans against French's, Slaves and so on. It was wrong and many German thinkers and fighters supporting Hitler were against such position (including Leon Degrelle for example). German or Italian nationalism is one thing - finally little thing. Indo-European (indo-aryan) is other, much greater. The Sacred Tradition and the Third Empire of Spirit is the third thing, the greatest one. If little nationalism agrees to be embedded in the Indo-European context is good. When it stresses the inner differences it is bad. The same for Indo-European civilization. If it recognizes its sacred nature (Tradition) is good. If it conceives itself as goal in itself it is not acceptable and looses its legitimation.
It attacked the first political theory and second political theory simultaneously. That was main reason of its strategic and military defeat. On the ideologically level the same was the reason of its intellectual defeat. The rule (explicitly defined in the 4PT) is the attack on the communism is valid and legitimated ONLY AFTER the common victory over the liberals. Geopolitically speaking Land wins the Sea and only AFTER that its parts decide who is Heartland. If the inner struggle starts BEFORE the victory over first political theory (capitalism and anglo-saxon thalassocratic Empire of money and lie) or even if the communists are declared the enemy number one instead of liberals, the fascism helps the liberals to win and pushes the communists on the side of the MAIN EVIL. So the fascism was absolutely wrong here.
These four points are essential negative moments. There were other less important as the theoretical weight. There were some positive moments: anti-capitalism, anti-materialism and other anti-modern features. That is valid for real historic fascism with all its terrible and fascinating (for some) aspects.

>>15382585
>Dugin thread
We should make those more often

Btw is he literally creating Eurasian union here?