/lit/ - Literature

Who cares what he thought, he was regarded

>>17078158
>regarded
as based and redpilled

>ride the tiger, you can see his stripes but you know he’s clean, oh can’t you see what I mean?

What did his mean by this?

>>17078167
he’s definitely referencing evola; he makes occult and esoteric references in other songs.

i think he might be saying here that we shouldn’t freak out over the kali yuga because it’s a process that happens and will always happen at a certain point; you just have to overcome it and ride the tiger.

>>17078167
>>17078205
Between the velvet lies
There's a truth that's hard as steel, yeah
The vision never dies
Life's a never ending wheel

boomp

>>17078152
> or did he just see the warrior caste above or equal to the priest caste?
Not above but equal yes, and they were both beholden to the king/emperor (Guenon believed the priests were always above the warrior caste). The Germanic tribes had no distinct priestly caste (the king/father also functioned as priest), but Celts had druids as the priestly caste for example. So it's a general division but it differs between peoples.

>>17078934
ty

who cares, it is the artist caste that is superior! raâga blanda!

>>17078152
Neither. There’s a militant aristocratic class which has purview of the political function and that’s always subordinated to the religious purview of a priestly class. However, there is ultimately a monarch who can be said to span both. Both a member of the political aristocracy and a representative of the divine on earth. The distinction came over where that monarch has roots - as a priest or an aristocrat. He believed it was an aristocrat.

>>17078934
This is not accurate.

It’s actually illustrated on the cover of Revolt.

>>17078934
>The Germanic tribes had no distinct priestly caste
It seems like they did but lost them. I wonder if there is more evidence for this, I only know of Tacitus. In their later societies the king definitely serves as the high priest in both secular and religious matters, but is also a warrior in his own right. Being a Germanic king seems like it fucking sucked. You have to be a warleader, uphold the customs, and administer priestly duties all at the same time.

>>17078993
It's simplified but not incorrect.
>There’s a militant aristocratic class which has purview of the political function and that’s always subordinated to the religious purview of a priestly class
This is Guenon's take. Evola said that while the priests provide the spiritual authority behind the temporal power, the priests are not above the aristocracy. The priests asserting themselves above the aristocracy was the folly of the Silver Age.
>However, there is ultimately a monarch who can be said to span both. Both a member of the political aristocracy and a representative of the divine on earth.
Correct.
>The distinction came over where that monarch has roots - as a priest or an aristocrat. He believed it was an aristocrat.
No, there originally was no distinction, and he believed the true monarch to be both. He picked the side of the "aristocracy" in the Italian Middle Ages because that is where because of contingency the Emperor came from.
>>17079006
Yes there's a possibility they used to have the distinction as well. It was also a bit more nuanced, with the travelling seeresses and what have you, but yes being the head was quite the responsibility.

>>17078934
Germanics had Gothi’s

>>17078160
kek

>>17078152
Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power combined as Regality. The heir comes from the Noble Warrior caste and is initiated via ritual into the position of Monarch by the priestly caste to be sanctioned by the Divine powers and therefore legitimized to represent Order both within the metaphysical and earthly world.

>>17079061
This isn’t an Evolian idea. He’s just observing how society was structured in the past. Political functions are subordinated to religious functions with the exception of the monarch. Consider the liturgy for example where the only non-clergyman able to participate is the King or those councils of Ancient Rome where the political representative in attendance was the monarch and otherwise only clergy. His distinction is who the monarch is, not whether one “caste” had governing primacy over another. That was never debated.

What's your opinion on Dumézil?

>>17079243
Seconding, this lil nigga any good?

>>17078152
Correct. Combined.

Who decided who the king can marry?

>>17079243
>>17079434
If you're White you should be reading Dumezil. Dumezil is what the Traditionalists wanted to be and were too weak to be.

>>17079568
Was he a pagan?

>>17079006
There's almost certainly a connection between the death of the Germanic priest caste, the warrior-priest merger, and the rise of Odin. Caesar is flat out lying when he brings up the Druids doing human sacrifice, but you'd think the Romans would care to mention if the Germans were as fucking bloody as the Norse were. The obvious answer is that the Germanics the Romans ran into, that still had a priestly caste, weren't as violent and warlike, and as such had a smaller role for Odin. Remember, the Romans said that "Mercury" was NOT the highest god, "Jupiter" was, and "Hercules" was a close second.

>>17079157
A Gothi wasn't a caste, it was just a temporary role. It was literally whoever was leading a ceremony. You stopped being a gothi the moment the ceremony stopped. It literally just means "speaker".

Give me the evolapill bros. What's he saying that isn't already said by Guenon and the other perennialists? What's a priest, what's a warrior, and what does their union signify?

>>17079568
Recommendations on where to begin?

>>17079601
By our standards, no, but given how much attention he paid to our people's histories, an ancient Germanic would probably classify him as one. It should be noted that Dumezil favored Mussolini over Hitler, seeing National Socialism as just a modern re-enactment of the priest-warrior merger, which had disastrous results for the Germanics. He hated Commies after they murdered his brother and burnt down his village, however.

>>17079610
Guénon is Tradition from the priestly perspective, Evola is Tradition from the warrior perspective. Guénon focuses on Eastern Tradition, Evola focuses on Western Tradition.

>>17079619
Gods of the Ancient Northmen is the work he did on the Germanics (specifically the Norse). The standard "beginning book" is Mitra-Varuna, which covers the two forms of the Priestly function. tl;dr there's a Mitra function AKA Tyr, which is judicial, litigious, "by the book", enforcing of law, soft, formal, contractual, and LOOSENING, and a Varuna function AKA Odin, which is shamanic, physical, ecstatic, sudden, skeptical, warlike, and BINDING. It's also a good demonstration of his general method of using etymology, religion, and myth to compare Hindu, Germanic, and Roman religion.

However, Archaic Roman Religion is FANTASTIC. It's an incredibly large tome, but it's absolutely wonderful. He also wrote more niche books covering Warriors, Kings, and Sorcerers (he did one of these twice, I forget which; I believe it's warriors). A lot of his stuff is still, sadly, in French and untranslated to English.

>>17079610
Evola teaches the principle of action and bravery where as Guenon teaches the go hide in a cave and meditate.

Take your pick

>>17079610
Evola is the hypeman for Traditionalism.

>>17079834
kek

>>17079659
Interesting, thanks for sharing.

>>17078152
The king is a high priest. Should not be hard to understand.

>>17078152
what book would i pick up if i wanted to read evola’s thought on this topic? I am interested in the historical as well as metaphysical relationship between regnum and sacerdotium. I’ve read Guenon’s and Hani’s books on the subject, but not really familiar with Evola. Help frens.

>>17079243
>>17079434
>>17079568
what the fuck this looks like a pol joke

>>17079201
>This isn’t an Evolian idea. He’s just observing how society was structured in the past.
And his observations differ in some aspects from those of Guenon.
>His distinction is who the monarch is, not whether one “caste” had governing primacy over another. That was never debated.
It was debated, with Guenon. Their argument came from the fact that Guenon thought the priestly caste was always above the warrior aristocracy, while Evola saw them as more or less equal. Read Evola's Revolt and then Guenon's Spiritual Authority & Temporal Power.
>>17079243
Dumezil is great.

>>17079659
>"by the book"
Tyr broke his oath when he didn't set the wolf free, which is why he lost his hand. In some stories the other gods think less of him afterwards, probably because he did break an oath while deceiving Fenrir. Even after none of the other gods were brave enough to put their own hand in the mouth of Fenrir.

>>17081579
I’m thinking he was based.

No, bucko, there’s a distinction between the Heavenly Father and the Terrible Mother

>>17081579
And ergo Bataille and the College of Sociology were also fascists.
>t. just got Ginzburg'd

>>17081579
>(((Ginsburg))) accuses someone of nazism for researching European mythology
But of course lmao

Who cares about some ugly failure of a person's schizophrenic ramblings?

>>17082311
t.

>>17079839
I am kind of serious though, there's a reason why Evola is the author everyone wants to talk about. It's because he gets you excited about it.

>>17081779
No, he didn’t see them as equal. No one did. Perhaps we’re on the same page and you’re just wording it strangely but if you read his books (or anyone’s books for that matter - Guenon, Dumezil, anyone) they were not equal. One had primacy with the exception of the monarchical function.

>>17082886
I didn't say equal, I said more or less equal. The priestly caste was "above" the warrior aristocracy in the sense that they provided the metaphysical framework behind the actions of the latter. They are not above in the sense that the warrior aristocracy was literally beholden to them (this is how some Guenonians like to interpret it). The warrior caste answered to the monarch, not the priests, is what I mean.

>>17082924
Ah okay fair enough. That’s a bit simplistic still but pretty much true, I agree.

>>17082932
>That’s a bit simplistic still
Look where we are mate
>but pretty much true, I agree.
Yep, my point was that using similar wording you did, many (pseudo-)Guenonians like to claim that the aristocracy should do the priests' bidding, which is false.

>>17082973
Okay. Then we actually totally disagree. Evola specifically mentions in one of his articles how a Roman legionary wasn’t able to act in a theatre of war until sanctioned by an ordained priest. The priests had more authority than the aristocracy and no act was justified unless sanctioned by them. The exception is the monarch. So if that’s what you mean by “do their bidding” no we disagree.

>>17083013
>Evola specifically mentions in one of his articles how a Roman legionary wasn’t able to act in a theatre of war until sanctioned by an ordained priest.
Yes, that's what I said earlier. That's the manner in which the priests are above the warriors.
> The priests had more authority than the aristocracy and no act was justified unless sanctioned by them.
No, they did not have more authority. This was the major point of disagreement between Evola and Guenon. The priests here merely functioned as the spiritual extension of the monarch, just as the warriors were the material extension. The priests provide the metaphysical grounding, but are not the lords over the aristocracy. The sanctioning you speak of could not be done without the directive of the monarch. They both answer to the monarch, not one to the other.

>>17083060
Still disagree but I see I won’t convince you

>>17083114
No you won't if you say that's what Evola stated. You're repeating Guenon's view, which is fine, but Evola disagreed with it.

>>17083123
>You're repeating Guenon's view
I’m not and that’s what you’re failing to understand from me but I digress.

>>17083182
Yes you are, apart from the monarch part. I understand what you mean but it's not what Evola said.

>>17083222
No I’m not. What I’m describing is something none of them ever disagreed on - not Evola not Guenon not Dumezil not Coulanges not Vico not anyone because it’s a historical fact. All of them recognize a strata of society which had primacy and authority over all the other strata of society. Where Evola departs from Guenon but not so much from other thinkers is specifically the monarch, not the actual stratifications of society at large and subordination to their roles.

Here’s Evola talking about Dumezil:
“He holds that all civilizations proposed a partition of ‘functional divinities’, which reflects an analogous social partition. These would be, in the first place, divinities that incarnate the idea of sovereignty in both its mystical and almost magical aspect (sacred power which affirms itself directly, which triumphs without fighting), as well as legal; then, warrior divinities; and finally, the divinities of fecundity, of riches, of productivity. The three types of gods have their correspondence in three functional castes or classes: the lords or priest-lords, the warriors, and the bourgeois or proprietary and farming animal breeders. Through complex and tenacious research, Dumézil demonstrates that this tripartite structure, well-attested in the East, was not alien even to Rome – though here, the principle of a somewhat uniform social unity, based on the civic sense, eventually prevailed over the principle of hierarchico-functional articulation. The triad of gods in Rome according to Dumézil was Jove, Mars and Quirinus. The tripartition of the major Roman priesthood, the Flamines, corresponded to these. The social counterpart was constituted by the three ancient tribes of the Ramnes, the Luceres and the Titienses. These traces of a common legacy survived in Rome up to that time in which they became simple archaic hold-overs, no longer accessible4 to the animating idea which had constituted their basis.“ You can see that he doesn’t make a distinction between the primacy of the judicial function over that of the economic vs the primacy of the spiritual function over the judicial. They function in the same way. The difference he goes on to writer at a later date is in the monarch who performs a function as an axis rather than a strata. One could say they departed on where this axis was as seated, but not on what strata enveloped or why.

>>17083387
Here’s more Evola:
“ After the battle of Trasimene, Fabius told the soldiers, ‘Your fault was more in having neglected the sacrifices and in having ignored the warnings of the augurs, than in having lacked in courage or ability’. No Roman war was commenced without sacrifices, and a special college of priests – the fetiales – was charged with the rites relative to war, which could be considered a ‘just war’, iustum bellum, only insofar as it undertook these rites. As de Coulanges has already had occasion to note, the basis of the military art of the Romans originally consisted in avoiding being forced to fight when the gods were against it — which is to say, when no concordance of human forces and forces from on high could be ascertained through ‘fatal’ signs.

Not to argue with you, but could you please point out where here Evola departs from I’ve said here. This would be productive.

>>17079712
>Evola teaches the principle of action and bravery
You wont reach God through bravery
> where as Guenon teaches the go hide in a cave and meditate.
false, Guenon taught actually getting off your lazy ass and joining an eastern tradition, either monastic or non-monastic according to a person's preferences. Guenon happened to join a non-monastic sufi order where people still live normal lives who are members

>>17083429
>You wont reach God through bravery
Bravery is the wrong word. Replace with action and explain why.

>>17083387
>>17083395
Good posts, where were these quotes from specifically? I want to look them up later. I can't look up quotes right now so I'll concede even though I still disagree, but the point I was trying to make was relatively minor. Evola doesn't depart from the quotes you provided, but I'm fairly certain he does add nuance elsewhere, he discussed the matter in many of his books. I'll respond back later or make a new thread about it when I've been able to check it.

>>17083500
>Replace with action and explain why.

Of all means, understanding alone can bring about liberation; as without fire there can be no
cooking, so without knowledge of the truth there can be no real emancipation.
Action cannot remove ignorance; but knowledge disperses it as light disperses darkness.

>>17083506
Articles he wrote titled “Dumézil and the Structure of Civilizations” and “The Roman Conception of Victory” in Italian publications. Arktos Journal has them available online and it looks like they provide his original citations.

https://arktos.com/people/julius-evola/

>>17083543
Thanks

>>17083525
Is that a direct quote? It’s very nice but it doesn’t actually answer my question.

How is it that action is incapable of bringing knowledge?