/lit/ - Literature

>>11977364
Wasn't Truediltom confirmed gay?

>>11977364
Because they are. As someone who's been around those circles it's a split between failed hipsters, artists who haven't moved onto scholastic philosophy yet, and gays who want the world Christianity creates without the personal moral obligations.

>>11977364
As someone who has read a lot of Evola, I was repulsed when I found other people who read his stuff online: most of them are short, ugly, impish, and arrogant. It's sad. I wonder what their true intentions are. Evola admired the warriors of society, but these boys are the weakest cunts I've ever seen. It makes me think they're just being edgelords and don't take Evola seriously. Also, they don't read Guénon, so that makes me think even more that they're just edgy faggots. And one last thing is that they've usually only read one or two of his books, which isn't enough to understand Evola.

If you take Evola's message seriously, please start lifting weights, anon. Get big, get strong, get fast and flexible. And also start meditating and cleaning up your optics and being less degenerate, because you look like a twerp and when I see you in person I'm going to fucking smash you. I will break your fucking orbital bones because you're ruining traditionalism with your fucking stupid antics, faggot. You'd make your ancestors sick. In the traditional world, you'd be labelled a chandala and fucking lynched. Gain some weight, you skinny imp fuck twerp. Fuck you.

>>11977568
He's got a gf anon check his fb he self doxxed pretty openly.

>>11977646
I get a bit triggered by this post because
>1.
Evola didn't call himself a "traditionalist" but dealt with that term, at least in the text i read from him he criticized the term because it kind of means a person who wants to return to the world of Tradition when that's not possible because of the state of the world.
>2.
How do you even know what these people look like after talking to them online? And if a person looks a certain way that doesn't prevent them from reading Evola & understanding his texts. I mean, you can be well aware of the warrior life without being one yourself, in fact i would be surprised if i came across a person with a warrior-tier physique in the modern world where such a thing is not necessary to survive any more, for any class of people (with very few exceptions)

>>11977646
>calling others edgy

>>11977683
Your first point is just a semantic one, and not really an interesting one. It's pretty widely accepted on /lit/ that the word "traditionalism" refers to a pretty small set of 20th century writers who wrote about similar topics and had a shared general worldview. I know Evola rejected it, mostly reiterating what Guénon said on the word, but nonetheless, everyone knows what I'm talking about so it doesn't matter.

If you go on certain social media, you can find these guys. It's not too hard. Some people are open about this stuff. And I agree that physical looks don't affect understanding. But my point is that these guys preach a warrior lifestyle and will use Evola quotes like "The blood of heroes is closer to god than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the pious" in order to look cool (because it's a nice quote) but then they're just pussies and imps in real life. It's annoying. Anyways, my point isn't that they need to hyper impressive athletes, but just that if they're going to preach this shit, they should at least exercise and be healthy, gain some muscle, cut some fat, etc. Also, warrior bodies are still common among athletes and people are take their health seriously. I'd say that a small but significant percentage of people still have good physiques. If you truly assert the superiority of a warrior-caste, you should pursue the warrior's body. Evola advocated joining the military. This is a good option for anyone who likes Evola. But at least hit the gym.

>>11977646
Lots of chandalas are big and strong, that's why they make such excellent slaves.

>>11977821
Chandalas are by definition categorically not slaves. They don't fit into any of the four castes, not even slaves, and so are labelled "untouchable" and get their own "caste", which is effectively a non-caste and which is filled with all the rejects. It's the worst thing you can be. It's worse than being a slave. So yeah, by definition, a chandala doesn't make a good slave, or else they'd be a slave and not a fucking chandala.

>>11977818
I gotta counter-signal the part about joining the military. Because joining the military today makes you into a soldier, as opposed to a warrior. Evola makes a clear distinction here. You would be a servant of the burgeoise class, as opposed to ruling over the burgeoise which is what a warrior does (this class is gone in the modern world because the power has passed down from the warrior class to the burgeoise, this is "involution").

Also you might call Evola a traditionalist because that is a common term to describe him and people like him but i will continue to deny it, because it is misleading to say that Evola was a man who stood for a certain "school" or "ism" when he was actually a scholar who did a very good job at going above and beyond the type of thought common to modernity such as ideologies and "isms" which is why i like the content of his works so much, his works are really like a survival manual to a certain type of people who cannot stand the modern world and had i not found him by now i don't know if i would have even survived.
I've checked out Guenon as well and his works seem really interesting too but i'm right now reading Evola's book on the "Holy Grail".

>>11977364
Empty vessels make the loudest noise, and there is no vessel more empty than base "traditionalism."

why are they ALWAYS starting self-help threads and looking to books to sort their dysfunctional lives out

>>11977875
lost, young men need meaning just as much as everyone else, water wet

Fuck off /leftypol/

>>11977861
Good point on the first one. And I agree. But he did suggest joining the military in some of his essays, but he might've had a different view of the Italian army at that time and its role in society (so it might've just been a product of the times). I think he would agree that the military could provide good skills for certain people who in another age would've made good warriors, but that its role in modern society has been degraded.

And I'll concede the second point. Traditionalism is a term of convenience, but you're right about it not being the most appropriate term. I'm like you, anon. I'd be pretty much lost without Evola (and Guénon). The Holy Grail is good. One of my favorites from Evola.

>>11977875
> "why are they trying to self-improve and live better lives?"

>>11977875
Barkens the mind, dost it not?

>>11977875
let's unpack this. sweetie it's almost as if modernity has left people with no meaning to find and the blind lead the blind. anyway i'm going to need a citation on that claim, do you have any sources for your assertions? maybe, just maybe it's called being a decent human being, seeking self help and helping others, you do realize that, right?

>>11977950
I'm on your side, but could you not be such a condescending prick? You're making us look bad.

>>11977950
>>11977933
>>11977913
>>11977885

"kek". I hit a nerve it.

>>11977875
because non-NPCs feel alienated in the post modern world. Thats why traditionalism is becoming popular

>>11977896
>He thinks I'm /leftypol/
Buddy, if only you knew.

>>11978120
Those people are still NPCs, anon. They're just running on incompatible software. The rhetoric of the Evola internet crowd reek of a mass who don't actually want to embrace their free will, but, instead, want to bring about a society just as systematic as our current one, only shifted superficially towards their preferences.
And a lot of them have great preferences, with their desires (genuine or not) for a return to traditional family structures and less secularism, but let's not delude ourselves by saying that these people are individuals, and not another species of automatons.

what the fuck are you supposed to get out of Evola in the first place?

Esoteric wallpaper with which they adorn their miserable lives. Funnily enough that what it was to Evola too.

>>11978367
>what the fuck are you supposed to get out of Evola in the first place?
Depends.
Out of Ride the Tiger/Men Among the Ruins only?
Not much.

>>11978120
nobody can figure out what the fuck traditionalism is and even if they do figure out what it is, they cant free themselves from the predominant ideology that occupies their current life to adhere to a new one

>>11977646
the responses to this post are more disappointing than the fact you felt comfortable posting this here
>>11977683
please go back

>>11978367
self-possession

>>11978363
>who don't actually want to embrace their free will
"free will" for you just means satisfying your desires with instant gratification. For us, traditionalists, it means purifying the will to power through asceticism. There is no greater power than that of tradition, which rests on the realm of being instead of the realm of becoming.

>>11978416
You would abandon the Dionysian to mask your own weakness.

>>11978416
>"free will" for you just means satisfying your desires with instant gratification.
No it doesn't. Why are these "traditionalists" (I don't think you actually are one) always assuming anyone who critiques them is a degenerate leftist SJW caricature? I am a strong believer in the ascetic, contemplative lifestyle, I just doubt the sincerity of most self-proclaimed traditionalists.
>For us, traditionalists, it means purifying the will to power through asceticism.
Most traditionalists I see on this website aren't concerned with something so transcendent. Their belief in traditionalism always seems to stem from a boomer-tier nostalgia, an aversion to what they perceive to be postmodernity and Marxism, and a zealous, contrarian and unthoughtful reverence of anything simply by virtue of it being old.

>>11978363
right, everyone who reads evola wants to be a medieval serf. sure.
>>11978367
that the existentialist proposition "existence precedes essence" is fake gay horse shit, and true freedom in an age of dissolution comes from taking objective stock of the world around you and adapting to it while your actions are guided by your spiritual center, which inhabits the domain outside of time and material existence.
it is applied advaita vedanta for depressed people who find the modern world alienating but can't physically escape from it.

>>11978448
watch out guys we got an OOBERMENSCH in the building

>>11978416
why would you willingly let yourself fall victim to this incredibly specific and convoluted ideology? Tradition is such a vague and shit Big Other that im not even sure it gives you any ideology good boy points in return for your indoctrination.

If you're so hell bent on self reliance and being intellectually and spiritually free from the modern world why would you just instead practice critique of ideology instead of try and shoe horn yourself into another ideology that will control your mind?

>>11978416
Kindly keep your Hegel-perverted faggotry away from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

>>11978120
>we live in a "post-modern" world

>>11978455
>a "spirtual center" or some other such nonsense is a manifestation of essence rather than existence
Gay.

>>11978520
if you want to believe you were born at the time you were born with your specific physical body for zero reason whatsoever; that your essence, or the brahman, or whatever, had no say in it at all and everything is just matter moving in whatever direction for no reason other than arbitrary laws we barely understand phenomenologically and don't understand at all ontologically, that's fine, but please put your wine bottle in a brown bag so you don't look so sorry

>>11978478
there's no hegel in that at all, you don't know what you're talking about

>>11978469
lol why not practice critique ideology instead?

jesus christ

>>11977646
>most of them are short
How do you know their heights?

>>11978451
She stares right at you...

>>11978611
>implying manletism isnt a state of mind
Confirmed 5'11"

Evoler is garbage desu

>>11978601
Here again we see the slew of exogeneity from the traditionalist. There cannot be a tendency toward anything that exists within you, no metaphysical voluntarism, only an external locus of control that MUST define every ill that befalls you.
>>11978606
Evola is the realization of the above anon after reading Schopenhauer or Nietzche, wherein the notion that banality exists within you is profoundly uncomfortable. As such, the traditionalist must reassure himself through Hegelian whispers of the modern "geist" being the source of his feebleness. Dress it up in Vedic obscurity all you want, but Evola's proposition is fundamentally a Hegelian reaction against Nietzche.

>>11977646
How 'bout you say that to my face, lil' boy?

>>11978651
>Dress it up in Vedic obscurity all you want, but Evola's proposition is fundamentally a Hegelian reaction against Nietzche.

No. Hegel's spirit is not a transcendent force, and neither is Evola's cosmology Platonic or otherwise anti-Nietzschean.

>>11978651
>no metaphysical voluntarism
this is a strawman. the gita makes it very explicit that your dharma can be reshaped by a combination of force of will and voluntary interactions with the world. the "locus of control" is YOU, but YOU are not your body.

>>11977364
>>11977646
I've read a bit of Guenon, but I've never found anyone irl who even know what traditionalism is. The few people online who read Guenon are mostly brown pill anons who are more into religion than politics or proselytizing the philosophy.

The Evola fans seem to be more interested in attaching themselves to the confused American alt-right aesthetics. I've never seen anyone who looks like a homo. Maybe a bit """"cringey""" since Traditionalism will be viewed as a LARP in a postmodern post-God is dead society no matter what.
>Is there a certain ressentiment towards the modern world reflected in their own hidden degeneracy?
Of course, in the way that the degeneracy of the modern world imposes itself upon everyone even though they don't wish to take part. "Virtuous" traditional behavior is discouraged while degeneracy is encouraged. It's only natural to be resentful of how society has limited your perceived potential. I don't think it has anything to do with latent homosexuality though.

I'm not familiar with the guy in OP, why do you think he is a degenerate or homosexual?

>>11977364

did you just say "if you don't like gay then you ARE gay"?

>>11978770
according to rabbi freud, yes

>>11978342
I know that you're a faggot and that this thread is off-topic.

>>11978770
It's more about the behavior than the distaste itself.
>>11978781
Holy shit, are you actually accusing me of sliding /lit/?

>>11978715
You're wrong. Just as you have an intuitive awareness of the noumenal, so do you have intimate knowledge of your body. The will is the expression of the voluntary. There is no dualism here--mind/body dualism is an impractical metaphysical distinction, despite the probable existence of a physical hierarchy. Our existence is only defined by the former. Also, the Bhagavad Gita is strictly antipersonalist, so you'll have to table your woo-woo crap for someone else who actually buys it.

>>11978660
Still pretty gay desu.

>>11978853
>Just as you have an intuitive awareness of the noumenal, so do you have intimate knowledge of your body. The will is the expression of the voluntary. There is no dualism here--mind/body dualism is an impractical metaphysical distinction, despite the probable existence of a physical hierarchy. Our existence is only defined by the former.
muddying the waters intensifies
> Also, the Bhagavad Gita is strictly antipersonalist
wrong, you obviously haven't read the gita or evola and this thread is a sham

>>11978673
Evola adopts a sort of pseudo-absolute idealism in his ontology, the only difference being that he tries to render it as personal. He is a crypto-Hegelian.

>>11978906
Demonstrate the dualism that you are purporting exists rather than simply asserting it with mystical nonsense.
>you obviously haven't read the gita
We can argue about the exact translation of "people who pretend to know me..." all day, but a contextually personalist reading does not fit.

>traditionalists

>mfw a traditionalist thread descends to purity testing and infighting

>>11977646
Where does Evola talk about getting big and lifting weights again?

>>11978906
Holy shit, if you read Brahma as being a personal deity, you might be clinically retarded.

>>11977364
>>11977646
Reading, but not thinking. Soul > reason. Sounds retarded and gay, but a lot of modern literature/philosophy is a waste of time, unless someone can convince me otherwise.
It's ironic, when it comes to the sort of idiots who called Beowulf "childish".

>>11978921
Correction, I meant this passage:
>Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme

>>11978940
>purity testing
What?
>>11978925
>Gasden flag
>nu/pol/
>"""traditionalists"""

>right wing traditionalists btfo lefty """intellectuals"""
>"w-well you're gay"

>>11978921
you first said
>Here again we see the slew of exogeneity from the traditionalist. There cannot be a tendency toward anything that exists within you, no metaphysical voluntarism, only an external locus of control that MUST define every ill that befalls you.
which is just completely wrong, then when i explain basic concepts of the gita, which evola's work is steeped in, which you would know if you had read literally any of it, you call them "personalist" and tell me to prove that it's real to you, which is you just moving the goalposts as a cover for the fact that you are just wrong about whatever it is you think that traditionalists believe. and this:
>Just as you have an intuitive awareness of the noumenal, so do you have intimate knowledge of your body. The will is the expression of the voluntary. There is no dualism here--mind/body dualism is an impractical metaphysical distinction, despite the probable existence of a physical hierarchy. Our existence is only defined by the former
is messy garbage with no purpose; impossible to engage with because it's so poorly conceived and written
>>11978979
i dunno why he threw that word in there, it had nothing to do with what i was saying

>>11977364

>>11979052
>filename

>>11979057
Evola's weakest point is easily his personalism. Why would I not attack him in that manner? Regardless of what text you divine your claims from, you (or Evola) still asserted that there was a meaningful distinction between mind and body wherein a sort of absolute ideal in the form of the nebulous notion of "modernity" can cause interplay. As such, I tried to explain why this was doubtful though a short, sloppy summary of transcendental idealism a la Schopenhauer. Is the issue that you don't understand what "metaphysical voluntarism" means? Unlike the other guy, I'm not making any claims regarding the freedom of the will, only that the will is the defining component of human existence.

>>11977646
Loved the answers to this. All of them got so defensive.
Keep on trucking buffEvolaposter

>>11979107
To expand upon this, it was this bit of nonsense that all of my posts were in reaction to, "personalism" and all:
>if you want to believe you were born at the time you were born with your specific physical body for zero reason whatsoever; that your essence, or the brahman, or whatever, had no say in it at all

>>11977997
I think he's compiling the terms of contemporary basedgoys to critique his opponent in an ironic sense.

>>11978041
"faggot", if I can get free literature from those /SIG/ threads then shut up and let them be at peace with their Doomer asses.

>>11977861
So how can his philosophy even be applied if the warrior class is gone? What can we really do?

>>11979180
According to Evola (or what I've pieced together from /lit/ threads discussing him), you live like a degenerate until the end of the fourth age. After that, maybe we begin again at the first age.

>>11979107
so "will" is the defining component of human existence, which i assume you would agree is part of the "mind", which is part of the "body"? this is just not a tenable formula. your desire to condense all of these things together looks like part of an ad hoc self-justification for nihilism.
i haven't read schopenhauer, but i've read nietzsche and agree with his ideas about will to power, amor fati, slave morality etc, which i gather are influenced by schopenhauer's claims. where i think we disagree, or are just not seeing each other, is that i think ancient symbol systems that thriving civilizations were built upon can be more useful as a reference for orientating consciousness than the writings of lonely eccentric german philosophers.
>>11979152
this isn't really a personalist claim, it's just a simplification of a key hindu concept.

>>11977646
>>11978963
This. Judging by how well-read and intellectually competent Evola was, it would seem rather odd if he was bulky.
Bookish types tend to spend most of their free time sitting quietly and reading, not visiting the gym. I've only read the tiger meme so I could be mistaken. Couldn't his spiels on "strength" be in regard to "spirit", since he was well-versed in hermetic philosophy?

>>11979298
From "On the Will in Nature" by Schopenhauer:
>My system therefore, far from soaring above all reality and all experience, descends to the firm ground of actuality, where its lessons are continued by the Physical Sciences. Now the extraneous and empirical corroborations I am about to bring forward, all concern the kernel and chief point of my doctrine, its Metaphysic proper. They concern, that is, the paradoxical fundamental truth, that what Kant opposed as thing–in–itself to mere phenomenon (called more decidedly by me representation) and what he held to be absolutely unknowable, that this thing–in–itself, I say, this substratum of all phenomena, and therefore of the whole of Nature, is nothing but what we know directly and intimately and find within ourselves as the will; that accordingly, this will, far from being inseparable from, and even a mere result of, knowledge, differs radically and entirely from, and is quite independent of, knowledge, which is secondary and of later origin; and can consequently subsist and manifest itself without knowledge: a thing which actually takes place throughout the whole of Nature, from the animal kingdom downwards; that this will, being the one and only thing–in–itself, the sole truly real, primary, metaphysical thing in a world in which everything else is only phenomenon, i.e., mere representation, gives all things, whatever they may be, the power to exist and to act; that accordingly, not only the voluntary actions of animals, but the organic mechanism, nay even the shape and quality of their living body, the vegetation of plants and finally, even in inorganic Nature, crystallization, and in general every primary force which manifests itself in physical and chemical phenomena, not excepting Gravity, that all this, I say, in itself, i.e., independently of phenomenon (which only means, independently of our brain and its representations), is absolutely identical with the will we find within us and know as intimately as we can know any thing; that further, the individual manifestations of the will are set in motion by motives in beings gifted with an intellect, but no less by stimuli in the organic life of animals and of plants, and finally in all inorganic Nature by causes in the narrowest sense of the word, these distinctions applying exclusively to phenomena; that, on the other hand, knowledge with its substratum, the intellect, is a merely secondary phenomenon, differing completely from the will, only accompanying its higher degrees of objectification and not essential to it; which, as it depends upon the manifestations of the will in the animal organism, is therefore physical, and not, like the will, metaphysical; that we are never able therefore to infer absence of will from absence of knowledge; for the will may be pointed out even in all phenomena of unconscious Nature, whether in plants or in inorganic bodies;

>>11979354
>in short, that the will is not conditioned by knowledge, as has hitherto been universally assumed, although knowledge is conditioned by the will.

>>11977364
Are you mad because he's a manlet? Why are you so mad? Doesn't he have it bad enough already that he can't grow facial hair?

>>11979298
>this isn't really a personalist claim, it's just a simplification of a key hindu concept.
It's of central importance in arguments ascribing Krishna's relationship to Bhrama, a deity which has a more characteristically impersonal description throughout the text. As such, its translation is key in arguments regarding the personalism or impersonalism of the Bhagavad Gita. At any rate, this part of the argument is going nowhere, and I may have grossly overstated the role of theological personalism in Evola's work. It was invoked more in reaction to what I perceived as you employing an exegetical argument attacking existentialism, which is sort of like trying to rebut the entire study of geology with a psychology text.

>>11977646
>Tfw 6'2" German chad reading Evola
Maybe that's why I'm not a faggot

>>11979395
*Brahma

>>11979354
so will=brahman, secularized by a charmless doomer?

>>11979414
If you really need to theologify it as a concept, then sure. Schopenhauer was far more interested in the Upanishads, anyhow.

>>11977950
What a faggy redditpost

>>11979414
>>11979428
I should add a caveat that Schopenhauer rejected an ideal absolute, which the notion of Brahma could be taken to mean.

>>11977364
>come across as flamboyant homosexuals
Prudishness was an Anglo-Germanic thing. These guys read the Classics and basically endorse the homoeroticism and austentatious displays of wealth by presocratic Greeks. They'll often get uppity about being called fags (because homoeroticism does not imply homosexual orientation), but it's fairly apparent to anyone paying attention that they would be massive homos if given the opportunity.

>>11977597
We /frogtwitter/ here?

>>11979449
>homoeroticism does not imply homosexual orientation
sup fag

>>11978416
>Will to power
Gay

>>11979014
Purity testing is people bitching about how others aren’t real X like them. Your second reply is a literal example of that

>>11979428
i get where this kind of dismissive remark comes from, but you're missing the point. i don't personally need to theologify it to understand it, but symbols are a useful vessel for invoking ideas without having to explain them in a socratic manner, making it easier to organize people around them, to refer to them as part of a mental model, or even relate to them personally. if schopenhauer and the upanishads both say exactly the same thing when broken down (just for example's sake; i'm sure schopenhauer's work is great), the upanishads are infinitely more useful.

>>11979454
It literally doesn't, but it's only a semantic distinction, as they are still fudgepackers.

>>11979471
Holy fuck, I didn't even notice the soul-crushing irony in that post.

>>11979472
"Will" is a pretty comprehensive and useful term to describe a concept, anon.

>>11979481
nigga u gay

>>11979472
I'll also say that Schopenhauer's thought was influenced by the Upanishads rather than an effort to reproduce it. I'd assume that Evola does the same with the Pali Canon, despite what he and his neophytes may claim.

>>11978120
NPC here
I still feel alienated
and this world is not post-modern, it's late modern

This post would be read more if it had replies, and a convincing image, and its meaning has little to do with those things, but if it nobody reads it then its meaning is meaningless.

And you will think this a trick, a meaning that is enhanced by its lack of image. But you won't think a trick is a trick if you think its tricking you.

And you will abandon all form of reply to its meaning to say you weren't tricked, because that is the most convincing image of all, an untricked, unfooled self, a self that sees into the unintended meaning of every phrase.

That, at least, is the meaning of this post.

>>11979548
blah blah blah this is a sentence you're reading a sentence right now I'm smart

>>11978770
He is also op and implied he doesn't like gay. Guess it's one way to be correct, at least once.

>>11979575

You fell for it

>>11979590
you just lost The Game

>>11979594
Evola states we have to buy firearms and shoot our local law enforcement agents

>>11979606
He can't keep getting away with it

People who are into Evola and all this esoteric neofascist paganism memery seem pretty confused and naive almost, they do shit like post photos of themselves in chainmail on facebook with DEVS VVLT in captions and unironically defend the albums Varg put on in prison that sound like runsescape music

>>11978861
if only it was as easy to strengthen his mind as his body.

>traditionalist
is that how they call turd burglars now?

Again, trying to free yourself from contemporary society and ideology is not something you're ever going to achieve by following a convoluted and nonsensical Traditonalist ideology.

>>11979647
sounds like the 16 year old me if he went that way.

Because fascism is unironically gay

So we have a thread where people read bodybuilding as the way towards traditionalism?

This is why Evola is not taken seriously, only retards read him these days.

>>11979517
No u

>>11979675
why do people fill out the captcha to say nothing

>>11977364
They're all incredibly repressed. Either they're declaring a violent war on themselves, or they're just doing it for the clout.

>>11977646

You do understand Evola spent most of his life confined to a wheelchair being essentially labelled a "disabled" person by modern society?

>>11979647
>that sound like Runescape music

>>11978861
i..is that mishima's little mishima??? wew no wonder he commited sppepkukao.

The guy on OPs pic actually creates pretty good content
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4UbYOkE5Guk

why does leftypol think everything they dont like is literally gay?

implying any of you small brains are as big brained as truedingdong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohqb4O8VGl8

>>11981045
>>11981102
All he does is regurgitate the arguments of others in his manboy voice. He never defines terms, his presentation is uninformative, and everything is in service of a generalized aesthetic feeling rather than a coherent system of thought.

>>11978925
Absolute unit

>>11981578
What did he fail to explain/define? Sure, he's not the originator of the school of thought that he's a part of but he also never claimed to be that.

>>11980044
I don't think that's Mishima. Bone structure is way off.

>>11981623
Did you watch his most recent video? The only bit that he actually explained was his (entirely true, btw) account of Derrida formulating his ideology as apologia for his pedophilia (NOT the other way around). The rest was just regurgitated terminology set to the tune of aligning Evola as some sort of diametric opposition to the totally irrelevant postmodern notion of center and freeplay.

>>11981630
It's Tamotsu Yato, Mishima's assfriend.

>>11981646
I meant Jargon, not terminology.