/lit/ - Literature

>>17153977
It's kinda gay

No. I don't get why this book is meme'd so much, but it was one of Evola's later works and ought to be one of the last of his books you read, if you want to read Evola.

>>17153977
No. There is a reason Evola is forgotten in the history of philosophy of both Italy and Europe in general, and it is because he is a bad philosopher. He is a derivative Platonist placing arguments from authority here and there where he claims that (clearly misinterpreted) religious evidence agrees with what he is saying. If you want to read about how to be a good man, resisting in situation of hardships, you can start from pic related, or get the Nichomachean Ethics, some Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius. Evola goes on and on about modernity being bad without giving you any explanation which goes beyond the neo-romantic "muh old values are lost", whose only persuasive power is in how far he goes to find obscure religious references to throw at the reader to convince them that, INDEED previous civilization had a contact with higher realities. This is a badly researched book by a nostalgic old man, about nostalgic old men trying to figure out why a changing world has left them behind. If you want to read good philosophy to find in yourself a rooting of some kind to resist hardships WITHOUT shifting responsability towards the age or the physical/economic conditions you were born in, for once, the meme is true: start with the Greeks.

>>17153977
No.
tl;dr
I read it and remember nothing about it.
It was so forgettable I forgot about it.

evola is really not that good

>>17153977
Basically:
>this philosophical school is bad, I won't give an argument here though, read my other stuff

Read Revolt Against the Modern World

>>17154046
You can't tell me what to do

>>17154050
Just did.

>>17154051
AaaaAAaaaAaaAAA I c-can't resist, m-must read revolt against the m-modern world AAAAAAAA

>>17154069
I'm...revolting?

>>17154072
No you are a very handsome boy

>>17154050
>>17154051
MOGGED

>>17153984
>>17153988
>>17154016
>>17154020
>>17154025
>>17154030
>>17154046
>>17154050
>>17154051
>>17154069
>>17154072
>>17154078
>>17154079
ATTENTION: ALL OF THESE USERS ARE CONFIRMED SHILLS AND THREAD DERAILERS, THEY ARE PAID TO DERAIL THREADS WHICH DISCUSS TOPICS THE ELITE DO NOT WANT TO BE DISCUSSED. DO NOT LET THEM WIN, DISCUSS THE BOOK INSTEAD OF MAKING STUPID BAIT POSTS.

>>17153977
Yes, but not as your first Evola book. It's a pretty hard read if you're not familiar with either Evola or the existentialists and Nietzsche.
If you want to read Evola, start with "Metaphysics of War."

>>17154138
I told OP to not read 'Ride the Tiger' first if he wants to read Evola.
Another anon told OP to start with 'Revolt Against the Modern World'.
Neither of us are trying to prevent OP from reading Evola, but OP's post was incredibly low effort and low information, why the fuck should we spoon feed him?
I already explained my justification. 'Ride the Tiger' was one of the last books Evola wrote and was written with the assumption that the reader would be familiar with his earlier works, so if you're going to read Evola, don't start with 'Ride the Tiger', it's that fucking simple, nothing more to discuss.

>>17154157
>replying to NPCs

no

>>17153977
what are some books that actually deliver what Ride the Tiger promises?

>>17154173
What does Ride the Tiger promise but not deliver?

>>17154179
>Julius Evola’s final major work, which examines the prototype of the human being who can give absolute meaning to his or her life in a world of dissolution
>Presents a powerful criticism of the idols, structures, theories, and illusions of our modern age
>Reveals how to transform destructive processes into inner liberation.
That's the Goodreads blurb.

>>17154184
>>17154173
Evola's Introduction to Magic.

>>17154185
>Evola's Introduction to Magic
Is it worth starting the occult through Evola as opposed through other means?

>>17154245
Good question. I would actually say no, since he's very "specialized" and I've noticed people who get hung up on Evola or Guenon tend to not go beyond them and just act like parrots.

Evola's methods are very effective, but for the full route of occult theory and practice I'd recommend instead authors like Rudolf Steiner, Dion Fortune, Manly P Hall, and Paul Foster Case.

Avoid Crowley and his ilk. You'll understand why later.

>>17154260
I guess the whole reason for reading people like Evola isn't because he's a good specialist but rather because he connects a whole variety of topics into a tantalizing package, which brings us full circle back to
>>17154173
>>17154184

>>17154266
I'm saying if you practice Evola's methods you'll inevitably understand all the things he talks about, but as we just discussed if you want the -full- range of occult thought outside Evola is not the best start. Nothing says you can't practice and read concurrently either.

>>17153984
He said Evola, not Enola

>>17154184
So Ride the Tiger still (but it goes over most people's heads because they lack the necessary framework - that's on them, not the book). But also Metaphysics of War and The Path of Cinnabar. You might also enjoy Codreanu's For My Legionaries.

>>17153977
I found it tremendously valuable. The tl;dr is a blueprint on how to define the self in a Traditional way and then on how to interpret the possibilities of life in a modern context.
>>17154016
Traditionalism isn't a philosophy, Evola is the farthest thing possible from a "neo-Romantic", he explicitly criticises dramatic rants about the Kali Yuga AND also, you haven't read him. Please engage with the material you are trying to criticise. I understand that you REALLY hate Evola, for some reason - probably because you're either ideologically obsessed, insecure or pretentious - but please, try to actually engage with authors.
>>17154151
Metaphysics of War, while very interesting, is perhaps the least useful Evola book for people today, unless you're in the Marine Corps or something.
>>17154245
Given that Evola is actually reliable, yes, it's worth it. Most of occultism is larping at best and spiritual degeneration at worst. If you are interested in "non-Traditionalist occultism", you could read some of the authors that inspired them, for example Eliphas Levi.

>>17154460
>Metaphysics of War, while very interesting, is perhaps the least useful Evola book for people today, unless you're in the Marine Corps or something.
I think you missed the entire point of the book. They are ideas you can implement into your life in any kind of struggle, not just literally war. It's a good introduction to Evola because it deals with some of the same aspects as Revolt but in a concise manner, and focuses solely on one subject.

>>17154634
Wouldn't it be better to just read one of his more general books, then? I don't see why you should reverse engineer the general from the particular, when the general is already formulated in other works.

If you want to survive being attacked by a tiger, you cannot run away because you will trigger the hunting instincts of the tiger and it will catch up to you and eat you. You can't fight it, because it's stronger than you and will eat you. Some old vedic or whatever story proposes that the only way to kill a tiger, is to climb up on its back and ride it until it collapses from exhaustion, which will be your chance to deal it a killing blow. Evola blows this whole thing up into a metaphor concerning surviving in the modern world. Like with the tiger, you cannot outrun it or physically confront it without being utterly crushed, however you may be able to "ride" modernity, or "surf the kali yuga" until you have a chance to strike back in some imagined revolution that will realistically never happen. It's a handbook on how to cope with being too redpilled for normies, but the proposed solution is nevertheless just a cope. "one day, I will get to you strike back at the tiger!"

>>17154173

>>17154687
>or "surf the kali yuga"

more like Surf Nicaragua

>>17154659
Perhaps, but experience teaches that those here who might learn something from Evola are often filtered by starting with Revolt (or Ride the Tiger) because it's a very dense work that assumes familiarity with many subjects, and is more easily taken in when you're already somewhat familiar with Evola's way of thinking and writing. If they've read Metaphysics of War and got something out of it, they'll probably move on to Revolt anyway.
I've known several individuals who were initially filtered by Revolt, but when reading MoW something clicked and they were willing to properly tackle Revolt after.

>>17154460
I hate Evola because I have read it extensively for two years, together with Guenon, Eliade, Walter Friederich Otto, Brelich and a lot of other philosophically oriented scholars of "comparative" religion. After which I finally snapped out of the general traditionalist LARPing because the incoherences, argumentative weakness, and overall vitiated psychological attitude of traditionalism had become impossible to avoid - as it was impossible to avoid how repetitive, predictable and unimaginative they all got if one has a solid grounding in Platonism, which is not only generally better argued for, but also won't draw you into blaming the badness of an age for the badness of your character. Tradionalist books have nothing to offer but bad research and weak escapism the kind of which is literally better executed in you average fantasy series. They are nothing but a weak attempt at going backwards in time both in term of thought and in term of ethics and proposed lifestyle. They appeal to your bleakest thoughts of "not belonging" here, not accepting yourself and the world, and especially not taking responsability for how things are and are supposed to be: time is "degenerating" after all, and we are in a "dark age", in which a proper spiritual warrior will never be able to act as effectively as he would in the golden age. In which your best attempt at living is "riding the tiger" or "standing among ruins", i.e. participating into reality ironically or stoically stand your ground in a lost battle. Both positions are not badly informed by the misconception that modernity is bad, but they are full of contempt towards life, which is always, undeniably, the mark of the weak man. Engaging in this kind of wishful thinking makes you sick. There is an overall air of sickness in these books and their authors - of physical and mental sickness, and of a general inability of action which characterizes all the old men phantasizing about "glorious deaths". I think it is way more useful to suggest to anons on /lit/ to engage with real philosophy and worthy books instead of wasting their time with this poorly written, poorly researched literature, and find their happiness in LARPing. There are videogames for that.

>>17154801
>real philosophy and worthy books
Name a few.

>>17154687
>however you may be able to "ride" modernity, or "surf the kali yuga" until you have a chance to strike back in some imagined revolution that will realistically never happen. It's a handbook on how to cope with being too redpilled for normies, but the proposed solution is nevertheless just a cope. "one day, I will get to you strike back at the tiger!"
Holy kek, is that what Nazis actually believe?

>>17154843
>https://4chanlit.fandom.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading/Non-fiction#Philosophy
/lit/ is full of useful reccomendation if you want to start reading actual books instead of garbage. Pic related is your starting point if you want to think instead of being a screaming monkey in a rightwing/leftwing echo-chamber. Here are also some of my personal favorites:

>Heraclitus - Fragments
>Parmenides - Fragments
>Plato - Apology, Euthyphro, Crito, Phaedo
>Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Prior & Posterior Analytics, Metaphysics
>Epicurus - Letter
>Lucretius - On the Nature of Things
>Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius
>Plotinus Enneads (if not whole, at least Lloyd P. Gerson - The Plotinus Reader)
>Porphyry - Sentences

>Descartes - Discourse on the Method, Dissertation on First Philosophy
>Goethe - Theory of Color
>Spinoza - Ethica
>Hume - Treatise on Human Nature
>Kant - Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of the Faculty of Judgement

>Nietzsche - On the Meaning of Truth in the Extra-Moral Sense, Zarathustra, Genealogy of Moral, Gay Science, Ecce Homo
>Heidegger - Being and Time
>Wittgenstein - Tractatus, On Certainty

>>17155445
Sorry, pic related was intended to be the four dialogues of plato - Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo

>>17154687
That's not what Ride the Tiger is about. If you want to "cope" about "imagined revolutions", you'll be much better served reading Men Among the Ruins which examines the odds of political revolution realistically.
>>17154700
Fair enough, I am on my sixth reread of Ride the Tiger and I am still discovering new things about it. With all that said, Evola is an esoteric writer for a reason. Many will be filtered and that is unavoidable.
>>17154801
Assuming that you have actually read any of the authors you claim to have read, which is a very daring assumption to make, are you sure that you're not the one projecting your weakness and cowardice onto the texts you are reading? Just because you took a given message away from reading a text does not necessarily make that message the objective message of the text. I am looking at your posts and it is clear to me that either you are making the most bad faith interpretation of Traditionalism possible or you understand nothing about it, be it because you haven't read or because you got filtered really badly. For example, one of the concepts that Evola repeatedly and most unsubtly hammers the reader over the head with is that of detachment - how exactly is a detached attitude reconcilable with self-delusion, "neo-Romantic" drama, anarchonistic tendencies and "blaming the world"?

>>17155445
They aren't mutually exclusive. Evola and the others you mentioned were more than familiar with most of those and built off of them. I'd recommend not picking one over the other.
>>17154801
You sound very bitter.

>>17155461
Good post, I agree with the last bit.
>Fair enough, I am on my sixth reread of Ride the Tiger and I am still discovering new things about it.
Evola is definitely one of those authors whose works merits many re-reads.
>With all that said, Evola is an esoteric writer for a reason. Many will be filtered and that is unavoidable.
True, but it would be a shame for willing individuals to be filtered because they weren't introduced in the right way instead of because they're not meant to understand it anyway.

>>17155522
>Evola is definitely one of those authors whose works merits many re-reads.
It's a bit frustrating sometimes when you feel you get something and then it turns out it was actually different. There is little I wouldn't give for a glossary with precise definitions of every key term Evola uses.
>True, but it would be a shame for willing individuals to be filtered because they weren't introduced in the right way instead of because they're not meant to understand it anyway.
IDK, at least for me, if you let yourself get filtered then you kind of have it coming. I might be biased though, since I just kept reading until things started to look clearer. I'd assume most people with real interest would do the same.

>>17155445
I have never seen so much name dropping
>Greek philosophy
Entirely useless except for stoicism
>OMG like how do we know that a tree is a tree??? There must be an ideal world of things, yes this is very deep

>Descartes and Humes
Entirely useless, every smart person already nows this instinctively and if you are dumb you won't get it anyway

>Goethe
???

>Kant
Completely useless in the real world, only an autist could think that humanity will just magically agree to not lie anymore

>Wittgenstein
He literally admitted that his major work is wrong

>Nietzsche
Only good one

Fuck it, im just gonna read ride the tiger first, I don't feel like reading 10 other books as preparation. The only book I'd seriously consider reading before is the one about hermeticism and MAYBE revolt against the modern world (even though the title is cringe inducing)

>>17155575
>There is little I wouldn't give for a glossary with precise definitions of every key term Evola uses.
You and me both.
>IDK, at least for me, if you let yourself get filtered then you kind of have it coming. I might be biased though, since I just kept reading until things started to look clearer. I'd assume most people with real interest would do the same.
In theory I agree, and that's exactly what I did as well. But people are susceptible to the traps of the modern world, and I've seen it first hand, several times, that with the right introduction they can be guided to "see the light" which would have taken years or never even happened if left to themselves. We need to help our brothers out where we can.

>>17155768
This chart isn't good, and if you read Ride the Tiger against the advice of all the people here who've read Evola and suggest you don't read it as your first book, you're going to have a bad time, unless you're very familiar with existentialism and the ideas of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and the like. Just start with Metaphysics of War or Revolt.

>>17155808
Fine, I'll start with metaphysics.
I'm somewhat familiar with nietzsche, at least his basic ideas, although I couldn't really explain it to someone else (except for slave and master morality, maybe)

Why does the Grail book get recommended as the first book to read? Is it even worth reading? It seems somewhat irrelevant, judging from the description.

>>17155461
I am not really doing this in bad faith, though it is possible that I am misinterpreting or projecting. I don't know for how long you have been reading tradionalist authors, but I think that it is very hard to stay in that sort of mindset without it becoming horribly stagnant after a while. "Detachment" is part of the problem: it is rarely depicted as Stoic detachment from the hardships that necessarily come with being alive, and it is more often depicted as detachment from a degenerating world. Preaching detachment is not in itself bad, but preaching detachment because the world does not function properly, or because you were born in the "bitter end" of this time cycle, in my opinion makes his detached-attitude in itself self-delusional (since you don't detach yourself from your fallacious judgments, as in stoicism, but you detach yourself from a world/civilzation that does not share your values) anachronistic (insofar as the aforementioned values belong -allegedly- to another age, and you refuse to recognize that ideas have advanced since modern philosophy and revert back into a weak, derivative form of Platonism), and a "blaming of the world" (insofar as you detach yourself from an age you believe is qualitatively inferior to others, in which the value of life is realized to a fuller extent). He does speak against nostalgia and yet his values are drawn from Roman Imperium, Graal legends, heroic myths and all manner of old literary and religious sources. Claiming that these sources stand for absolute atemporal values, while since the beginning of modern philosophy those values have been repeatedly questioned, with outstanding attempts to elaborate new ones as a consequence of recognizing the untainability of many of Evola's position (e.g. the assumption there is any kind of superior metaphysical order to begin with) is what make most of his book throughly obsolete and nostalgic. Every time he engages with his contemporaries (e.g. Heidegger) or even with modern philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche) all you get are superficial readings at best (in the case of the first) or thorough misinterpretations (in the case of the latter).

>>17155633
I know this is very obviously bait, but in the off chance you aren't baiting, you're underage and need to read more.

>>17155633
>so much name dropping
But anon, I was asked for names...

>>17155969
>Fine, I'll start with metaphysics.
Good on you. It's short but also a good sample of his philosophy/writing style, afterwards you'll be sure if you want to read more of his work or not.
>Why does the Grail book get recommended as the first book to read
It shouldn't be, that's one of the many issues I have with that chart
>Is it even worth reading? It seems somewhat irrelevant, judging from the description.
Yes it's a great book, it was originally the appendix to Revolt but was expanded into its own book. It applies many of the ideas set forth in Revolt to the Legend of the Grail. I think it's one of his best books, there's loads to be discovered there about history, religion, mythology, symbolism.

>>17155808
>revolt against the modern world
>cringe inducing
>better read ride the tiger

>>17156060
What are you trying to say?

>>17154801
I know you, you're the faggot OP from a few weeks ago who claimed he read all the Traditionalists but disagreed with them, and wanted to have a discussion with evolaposters who misinterpret Evola, for God knows what reason. It also turned out your assumptions on Traditionalism and the Traditionalists were hilariously wrong, like claiming the Traditionalists were Platonists, or confusing Traditionalism with Conservatism.

>>17156021
how is this bait?

>>17156031
yes, but you just named the ones that the philosophical establishment has decided are important. I mean seriously: Heraclitus? Parmenides? Who the fuck cares about those guys?
>omg everything is made of water
>uuuhmm nooo, askhually everything is made of fire
both of them are utterly irrelevant

How many laugendstangen had evola in his cannelloni when he was traveling?

>>17156518
Because you only focused on ethics despite the fact that the person you responded to wasn't. For example, you literally started complaining about Kantian ethics in spite of the fact that you were recommended Kantian metaphysics (largely unrelated disciplines).
You also had the absolute worst criticism I've ever seen (Wittgenstein didn't agree with Tractatus (not his most major work, btw), therefore, what he says in PI or On Certainty must be wrong; every smart person knows everything in Descartes and Hume instinctively despite the fact that they disagreed with one another on 90% of issues, etc.). You're humorously stupid if you sincerely believe what you're saying. You've also clearly never read what you're talking about.
You're the teenage virus stinking up this board, the illiterate retard that makes the board a worst place. I can't imagine anyone so stupid as you, so I must assume you are baiting.

it's a pretty easy read, you could get through it in a couple of days... some interesting ideas, most of it will be already known to you if you browse /pol/

>>17153984
>riding the tiger
>riding the
>riding
>riding white
>riding white nordic
>riding white nordic dick
The puzzle is solved

>>17154016
Sounds like you got filtered hard. What shit criticism

>>17156591
>implying metaphysics are even worth reading

>>17153977
>The ride of Modernity will get bumpy. Hang on tight!

>>17156635
Oh thank god, and here I was thinking he's into bestiality.

>>17156613
/pol/ doesn't read Evola and if they would most of them probably wouldn't agree. You've never read it.

>>17156667
I wonder if comic books are your main source of reading. It's definitely not nonfiction (even ethics) or you'd know that yes, metaphysics do matter.
Anyway, if you're admitting you haven't read the books you criticized, I don't see why you're still stinking up the thread. Please focus on threads that talk about books you've actually read.

>>17156688
>shit ideology and lazy effort
What a surprise

>>17156688
okay, I stopped reading before I got to the end. But I already know the 'accelerationist' types draw heavily from Evola.

>>17156700
Ok, fine, I admit my initial posts were just bait. The fact that metaphysics is retarded and doesn't matter because you can come up with a million different ideas which are all unprovable, still remains though

>>17156729
Are you retarded?
>>17156750
You are retarded.

>>17154138
I wish I got paid to derail threads.

>>17156780
What metaphysics have you read?

>>17156780
>The fact that metaphysics is retarded and doesn't matter
Midwit take

>>17156793
>You are retarded.
You are retarded.

>>17156794
Israel might want to employ you, look up Hasbara

>>17156817
>okay, I stopped reading before I got to the end
Retarded
>But I already know the 'accelerationist' types draw heavily from Evola.
Retarded2

>>17156795
>>17156813
if metaphysics were valid then there would be only one correct answer which everyone can agree on, yet there are only a bunch of different speculations, each with 0 proof. Explain this

>>17156793
I may be retarded but at least I read that pseudo shit of evola so that I can critic pseuds who haven’t.

>>17156919
>Metaphysics
>Freud
Yeah I'm not going to engage with this shitty bait, go read a book

>>17156950
It doesn't matter if you read it if you didn't understand it, retarded anon.

>>17156851
>I already know the 'accelerationist' types draw heavily from Evola.
that's not retarded that's a fact, and no I'm not going elaborate because I'm busy

>>17155808
For what it's worth, I believe that chart is from Ironmarch.

>>17156794
>tfw stuck doing it for free

>>17156919
You didn't answer the question.
List the metaphysics books you've read. If you can't remember them off the top of your head, that's fine. List 10.

>>17156981
Makes me more credible than you gonzalez. As a white man i don’t have to argue with you

>>17157004
They don't draw from Evola, they draw from what they think Evola is but they actually haven't read or understood him. You thinking they have is retarded.

>>17156963
the pic isnt supposed to be related to the content, now answer my question and stop evading like a little cuck

>>17157067
>retard evoshits don’t read because they are too stupid?
Not surprised

>>17157055
>As a white man

>>17156295
Yep that's me, except for the part about evolaposters v. true evola, which was another anon. Tradionalists are watered-down Platonists and I was quoting from Revolt Against the Modern world to prove it - the introduction in itself is basically a Platonic manifesto, followed by several hundred pages of bad research, poor arguments, and downright bonkers theories about Atlantidean cultures and Humanity originating in the arctic based upon feeble interpretation of the Greek Hyperborea. I'd rather have people believing the Timaeus literally than taking Revolt as good book. At least Plato had the excuse of not having any scientific research (as well as as very litlle philosophy) available, for writing what he wrote.

>>17157081
You are retarded.

>>17157040
0
I only read summaries of metaphysics because this way I don't have to waste my time
Now answer MY question

>>17156537
>the philosophical establishment
Mmmmh this makes me salivate. Please expand on who you think constitutes the "philosophical establishment", so that I can properly ridicule you.

>>17157112
>I only read summaries of metaphysics
Lmao, based retard

>>17154801
How bitter you sound lol

>>17156981
this
>>17157055
it literally doesn't

>>17157086
I think you're just a philosofag who was filtered by Evola and now pretends you read him for years lmao

>>17157162
Answer the question you intellectually bankrupt fraud

>>17157189
>you intellectually bankrupt fraud
>I only read summaries of metaphysics
lmao

>>17154151
>start with "Metaphysics of War."
lol ,no

E V O L A A A A A A A A A !

>>17157112
I was not expecting literally 0, kek. Here's a factoid: things you say don't gain value because you are by nature brilliant. Things gain value because you have expertise in the area. You wouldn't ask someone who's never seen a pipe before to do plumbing. Learn about what you talk about before you talk; otherwise, expect to be made fun of.
You seem young. How old are you?

>>17157212
Why not?

>>17153977
Absolutely, and do no listen to the people saying you need to start with others first. I am a literal philosophylet who couldn't tell you the names or teachings of the most well known authors, yet I was able to grasp everything Evola said because it deeply resonated with the thoughts and beliefs I had build by myself up to that point.

>>17157085
Scared of blonde people my greek friend? Why don’t you make some gyros and take your meds?

>>17157111
Are you chomping out because I’m right lmao

>>17157257
No, because you think you're right but you're just retarded.

>>17157231
>>17157207
Give me one reason why metaphysical speculation isn't a complete waste of time

>>17157276
You didn't answer my question. Please answer that first.
How old are you?

>>17157276
It's something that filters out annoying midwits like yourself.

>>17157275
Why are you so offended? You read ride the tiger right? Or does your brain capacity only allow for a wiki article lmao

>>17157288
No, fuck off nigger, you havent even answered a single of my questions so far
Give me ONE fucking reason

>>17157290
the only purpose of metaphysics is so that introverted losers can feel special because they know da troooth

>>17156667
Faggot yanks love their shite comics

>>17157336
How about we make a deal? I will give an argument and immediately after, you will respond with your age, as in, in the next post. Do you agree to that?

>>17157368
You have outed yourself as an armchair midwit. What else is there to proof?

>>17157368
ok, sure

>>17157424
I'm not the guy who reads metaphysics summaries because books are too hard for me, thank you very much.
Don't be so impertinent with your superiors.

>>17157468
that wasnt me retard

>>17157461
Sure:
There are two kinds of metaphysics, descriptive and prescriptive. They are both useful.
Descriptive metaphysics is useful because it helps us with a variety of subjects, particularly ethics. (Descriptive metaphysics is metaphysics which focuses on how people actually understand the world, as opposed to how the world is actually laid out, as a quick aside.) This helps us with ethics, as it allows us to understand what our concepts of complex ideas are, such as identity, the world, etc, which helps us choose action (as we can understand what our views are, their sources).
Prescriptive metaphysics is more important due to its ability to help us with facts than the ability to help us with actions. Epistemology really has nothing to work with if there's no such thing as the world, and science (as well as most of life) really has nothing to work with if not for epistemology. Why should we trust that a car running us over will kill us, or that a vaccine will probably be useful or that we should think long-term instead of believing that we will just die in five seconds? All these things require general rules on what is real to work, and sometimes, general rules can question our assumptions about these things. Therefore, metaphysics can help us with our ability to understand the world around us and thus to act in certain ways (for instance, believe vs not believe in a God).

>>17157542
>Why should we trust that a car running us over will kill us, or that a vaccine will probably be useful or that we should think long-term instead of believing that we will just die in five seconds?
Any non-retard knows the answer to this, there are absolutely no reasons why anyone would need to read a 1000 page book to figure these things out, i.e. metaphysics (at least prescriptive) is still a waste of time
23

>>17154016
>Neoplatonist
All roads lead to Rome. Jesuit world order

>17154185
>17154460
I don't get what Evola and the UR Group are trying to get you to accomplish. How does one become a fully realized and actualized absolute individual and what does that mean? How can Evola call himself a non-synchretist Traditionalist when he and the UR Group are stitching together Hermeticism, Alchemy, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Ceremonial Magic for a kind of do-it-yourself initiation? Don't get me wrong, I like the book and at the very least, it's a great anthology on many occult subjects.

>>17155768
Just do it, I did and I didn't have a single issue understanding it

>>17154801
>blaming the badness of an age for the badness of your character
Only needed to read this far to know you've never read a Traditionalist.

>>17156667
This would be an embarrassing take even if Wittgenstein hadn't recanted later.

>>17157276
Every other aspect of a worldview is based on metaphysics. It's the foundation of everything else you can know or do. That makes it pretty important.

>>17158713
Not him, but that ironically is what /pol/cels do, blame feminism for their failure to get laid, blame jews for their failure to be successful in life. It's always someone else's fault

>>17159019
That may be what /pol/cels do, but as it happens, it's not what Evola did. On Evola's disagreement with Guénon over the cause of involution, Guénon essentially blamed the "other" for the degeneration of tradition insofar as he pinned the blame on the revolt of lower castes who didn't know what was good for them, against upper castes. Evola on the other hand saw the origin of involution in the failure of the ruling caste to persist in its upholding of tradition, and that in losing the élan by which they ruled would resort to means more proper of lower castes - and that this is what precipitated revolt, because those lower castes could intuitively sense that their rulers, failing in their own duties, had resorted to ruling over their subjects by means and justifications more rightfully belonging to those subjects.
Toynbee, independently, drew much the same conclusion, diagnosing every failed civilisation as a suicide - that before a barbarian horde can hope to succeed in overwhelming a civilisation, that civilisation must have already weakened itself through infighting; and that the root cause of such infighting is the loss, on the part of the dominant minority, of their capacity to meet successive challenges with consistently creative solutions, and instead resorting to carrot-and-stick methods to coerce the public. The means by which this caused failure, in Toynbee's eyes, is that cultures are born of creative individuals and minorities who can meet challenges with positive, creative solutions, and that they lead the masses through mimesis - those below them follow them and imitate them without knowing the what or the why, but from an in-born sense that it is good and right. When the leaders turn from that to domineering and using force and violence, public mimesis leads to a like response of violence and force.

>>17159019
>>17159861
The question here is whether the /pol/cels are more part of the dominant minority, or the disenfranchised proletariat.
Most people who make a habit of spending time on 4chan are probably losers, or at best nobodies who are managing to scrape by on a modest living. We're not part of the dominant minority and therefore our sense of powerlessness is justified.
The frustration on the left is in seeing people who they've tagged with some intersectional label, seemingly acting against their own interests and aligning with a political elite who are duping them, and much of the left's academic focus is on the culture, social structures or other rationale underpinning why, for example, a working class housewife would vote for Trump in spite of being a woman in a low income household, and leads to conjecture over the fact that she's white and buying into a white supremacist narrative.
That's a load of nonsense of course, and relies on a radical redefinition of what "racism" is in order to make sense - a redefinition of racism that absolves intersectional minorities of their own prejudices, of their own habit of blaming others for - as you put it - "their own failure".
I'm not implying that intersectional minorities are at fault for their circumstances, but is a failure of progressive academics in presuming they know what makes the "/pol/cel" tick by ramming them into their own ideological framework without a care for the truth.

>>17159019
This is kinda deviating from the subject of the thread now, but I used to be antisemitic. From 2013 to 2018 I grappled with a dim sense that it was just paranoid bigotry that I couldn't justify, but couldn't drop.
It took a couple of things to break me out of it.
The first was reading, which absolved the Jews of responsibility for some of the stuff rightly the responsibility of our own culture.
The second was my growing disdain for the progressive left, the result of which was twofold. First, I couldn't maintain a white identity when I wouldn't piss on most white people if they were on fire, I absolutely hate how sick in the head so many white people are. Second, the more I exposed myself to the bullshit rationale the progressive left give for hating white people, the more I realised that it was the same rationale behind my antisemitism. Looking in the mirror and seeing a hypocrite repulsed me so much, that I ceased being antisemitic overnight.

>>17154016
dis nigga got filtered HARD lol

>>17154801
t. got filtered

>When the cock tickles the prostate in a rhythmic fashion, it goes pizza before spaghetti
Based evola

>>17160210
>>17160222
>Didn’t even read the first page

>>17153977
Read Revolt first.

>>17153977
Ride The Tiger is basically what happens when right-wing traditionalists finally concede defeat to liberal capitalism. They write a book where their cope seems heroic. They are very similar to tankies in that way.

>>17154801
If you aren't just a larper and the only thing you took out of traditionalism after getting hard into it was the social implications of it, you're a certified dumb cunt. As simple as that. May dancing Gurdjieff curse ur fucking anus

>>17154016
My thoughts exactly.

>>17154016
Are you the based poster I had a discussion with the other day in a Camus thread?
I'm starting to agree with you more. The ancients really said everything worth saying already.

>>17154801
wise post

>>17155998
An attitude of detachment does not refer to detaching yourself physically from the world like becoming a hermit or something. It refers to detaching yourself from the materialist perspective and adopting a higher point of view - that of spirit. A lot of Evola's work is dedicated precisely to the problem of remaining detached even as you dive right in the thick of the unconscious, attached, hypnotised and materialist world we live in. Take for example the chapter on music in Ride the Tiger - Evola explains why and how modern music encourages inferior rather than superior impulses, then provides a blueprint with which you can remain detached even as you engage with and dance to the tunes of that music. The exact term he used is "lucid inebriation" - a recurring term in that book. Detachment is about being aware and conscious of being more than simply your material self. We are talking about constant and unshakeable awareness. That's the real object of interest for Evola, not a "return to monke" style primitivism or whatever.
You should also recognise that Evola's values are not drawn from any form, be it Roman or Germanic or what have you - these forms all reflect Evola's values, Traditional values, but they are a product, not a source. If you read Evola you will see that he repeatedly speaks of Cycles and this is precisely why - the Roman cycle was a Traditional civilisation. The Western cycle was a Traditional civilisation also, though not anymore as we live in its degenerating remains until the next cycle arrives. There's no drama to this - to Evola, it is simply something objective to be engaged with dispassionately.
>untainability of many of Evola's position (e.g. the assumption there is any kind of superior metaphysical order to begin with)
This is an awful perspective to approach Evola's work with.
>Every time he engages with his contemporaries (e.g. Heidegger) or even with modern philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche) all you get are superficial readings at best (in the case of the first) or thorough misinterpretations (in the case of the latter).
I think you will be better served to engage with his commentaries again. I've found that Evola understands Nietzsche better than Nietzsche himself understands his own work. He does, however, only take what he considers valuable, dispensing with the rest.

>>17158334
The Traditionalist method revolves around understanding the doctrines you are engaging with and what makes them work. Then, if you want to, you can use that knowledge practically in order to create a functional doctrine of your own. Nothing stops you from doing that. This isn't syncreticism since you are dealing with the essential and functional components, not with the end product itself.

>>17162469
Okay, so what are Evola and the UR Group trying to achieve by drawing from a bunch of traditions? After you have made realized the absolute individual, what's the point of practicing magic? Even sidhis are considered to be a distraction that gets in the way of Nirvana in the Vajrayana tradition.

>>17163366
It would be good to be precise with our language here. The Ur Group book contains a handful of practices and techniques designed to produce specific effects. You perform the ones the effects of which you wish to experience. The book itself states that there are various paths - the ceremonial magic segments are unnecessary, for example, if you are aiming to achieve the Absolute through other means. Every practice has its purpose. If any of these practices will still be useful or necessary once you have crossed the finish line, so to speak, depends on various personal and objective conditions. You would certainly be under no obligation to continue if you have already attained enlightenment.

>>17155969
>Why does the Grail book get recommended as the first book to read? Is it even worth reading? It seems somewhat irrelevant
> It seems somewhat irrelevant

>>17163530
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's where Evola gives more indepth explanation of the Traditionalist method, right? Apart from all the cool stuff about the Grail myth, of course.

>>17156750
No, they don't. Evola would see accelerationism as pointless petty LARPing

>>17153977
People act like such faggots about Evola

Evola articulates an authentic "right-wing" view based on a hierarchical views descending from religious/spiritual metaphysics. It's a pretty interesting philosophical exercise especially because it overturns every liberal bias we're born into.

That said, he's also an unhinged loon and incredibly retarded in some areas. Especially his strange inconsistent views on Christianity.

>>17154801
yeah this too there's something fucked up about the esoteric traditionalists, they're probably spooks funded by somebody

>>17163793
>That said, he's also an unhinged loon and incredibly retarded in some areas. Especially his strange inconsistent views on Christianity.
Articulate your point.

>>17153977
It tickles me fucking pink that not only was Evola such a superficial pseud that he didn't know that the only Big Cat Riding hindu deities are DRAVIDIAN deities, or that Tantra itself is DRAVIDIAN not Aryan (Persian), but that dumbfuck /pol/pseuds STILL don't catch on.
Miguel Serrano makes this exact glaring self-owning mistake as well.
Shaktism is literally Nigger Woman Worship for Nigger Women.

>>17163811
>Articulate your point
suck 50 dicks faggot

the metaphysicians of history base their philosophy on history being true, as in thousands of years of corrupt historians and forged documents. Just not with the transparency of information and communication are people realizing many parts of "history" may not have even happened

>>17163876
You might be interested in reading his book, "The Yoga of Power", which discusses Tantra, Kundalini and the context of Indian spirituality at the time Tantra emerged. I think you will find it interesting.

>>17163876
Evola wasn't a pseud, he was likely a fed. Along with all of his "esoteric" peers

That's why they come out with these bizarre under-researched assertions, they don't actually give a fuck

>>17163882
I asked for articulation, not a schizopost.

>>17163889
>one of the people who greeted Mussolini at Hitler's residence after the rescue operation
>a fed
Uhhh? Do you mean like... a Waffen-SS fed? You can't be referring to the American government, surely?

>>17162469
It is exactly syncretism, it's simply not naïve syncretism.
Except it was massively naïve in Evola and Serrano's case because those retarded fags didn't even read the source materials or contextual histories, to know that Tantra is Dravidian and only claims the authority of the Vedas for self-preservation.
Buddhism and Jainism are also non-Aryan.

But what do you want from idiots that think the shit they do about literally any subject?

>>17163889
>Evola wasn't a pseud, he was likely a fed
Lmao, he was the most ineffective fed ever then

>>17163887
Yoga is simply not Aryan.
You know what is though?
Hilariously, Mazdayasna.
I haven't looked into Arya Samaj, deeply, so they might be too.

>>17163889
>Evola wasn't a pseud, he was likely a fed
I don't know why this sent my sides to the orbit

>>17163911
Because it's just as probable as "Hitler was a jew"

>>17163918
Wait but, if Evola was a fed. Then who is the modern fed passing as a ''right wing extremist'' ?

>>17163911
>>17163918
I laughed til my stomach hurt when I read Serrano's bit in Golden Thread about how Hitler threw WW2 on purpose so he could come back later when he could REALLY WIN AGAINST THE JEWS PERMANENTLY WITH THE HELP OF THE HYPERBOREANS

>>17153977
Make do with what you have + small history lesson with a traditionalist framework.

>>17163928
>REALLY WIN AGAINST THE JEWS PERMANENTLY WITH THE HELP OF THE HYPERBOREANS
God bless the Schizos, my jaw hurts from laughing

>>17163928
>Hitler threw WW2 on purpose so he could come back later when he could REALLY WIN AGAINST THE JEWS PERMANENTLY WITH THE HELP OF THE HYPERBOREANS
This but unironically

>>17163902
You are incorrect, the Traditionalists do not combine two separate things into one, but rather trace those two separate things to their identical point of origin. There is a massive difference.
>Except it was massively naïve in Evola and Serrano's case because those retarded fags didn't even read the source materials or contextual histories, to know that Tantra is Dravidian
Read Evola's Yoga of Power.
>Buddhism and Jainism are also non-Aryan.
Read Evola's Doctrine of Awakening.
>>17163907
What exactly is un-Aryan about yoga?
>>17163928
>>17163944
>he hasn't taken the Kalkipill
Bro have you even heard of Savitri Devi? S M H

>>17163953
Hi, Guenonfag

>>17163928
I think you missed Serrano's point, but no worries, he goes over most people's heads
>>17163925
Are there even any modern day "right wing extremists"?

>>17163962
>Are there even any modern day "right wing extremists"?
Not that I know of

>>17163957
Don't even start. I can't deal with his daily Buddhism posts anymore.

>>17163899
A fed on behalf of the bankers. Mussolini was one as well.

Mussolini was on the british intelligence payroll, was then a commited "marxist" (codeword for industrialist agent), and finally a "fascist" which was backed by Jewish aristocrats..

>>17163905
Mussolini kept Evola around to be an anti-clerical loon who would come out and say crazy stuff in the Italian newspapers to scare the catholic church into complying with Mussolini. Nobody in italy respected Evola and he was laughed out of Italy after Mussolini was finished with him

Evola is also connected to 50 other spooks and his family changed their name from "Avila" in Spain which was the last name for Jewish Kabalist scholars at that time

>>17163892
>schizopost
You still believe in mainstream (banker/monarch invented) narratives of history? Get up to speed here

>>17163980
Ah it's the true schizo again.
>Mussolini was on the british intelligence payroll, was then a commited "marxist" (codeword for industrialist agent), and finally a "fascist" which was backed by Jewish aristocrats..
>Evola is also connected to 50 other spooks and his family changed their name from "Avila" in Spain which was the last name for Jewish Kabalist scholars at that time
Post proof and sources for your ridiculous claims or be laughed at indefinitely.

>>17163953
>Read Evola's Yoga of Power.
>Read Evola's Doctrine of Awakening.
No.
YOU read the source materials in question, like the Vedas, The Avesta, the Epics and Puranas in question AS I HAVE, THEN get into why Avestan and Rig Vedic Sanskrit are so similar, and why Agnihotra is such a big deal in Ramayana vs the Puja and outright Tantric ideas of the Bhagavata Purana THEN consider the actually fully Dravidian Agamas with their outright degeneracy.

During Rig Vedic times, and I mean their oral tradition, not when they were written down, there was a Vedic culture in both Persia and the North India.
But as this became too far apart to remain consistent, two reforms came: Reform into Hinduism in India and Reform Into Mazdayasna in Persia.
Of the two, guess which is the most consistent with the original Persian source?
Not the nigger literal genital worshipping snake voodoo in India.

>>17163918
Hitler and all of the top Nazis were Jewish. No, I am not kidding. If you look into it, it's undeniable.

Hitler's family's last name was actually "Hiller", a rich Jewish line in Germany. The Jews were in the midst of a civil war between three factions at the time of Hitler, and Germans were beginning to get angry at the "Jewish elites", so the Zionist faction sent out Hitler was their own controlled opposition and used him to push normie Jews out of Germany into Israel (against their will).

Eichmann, the ashkeNAZI who organized the "holocaust", was Jewish.

>>17163928
All of the Aryan mystical theology was written by Zionist Jews in an "Occult" society, I can't remember their names at the moment.

That shit is the biggest psyop and it's still fucking going with internet right wingers reviving it

>>17163925
>Who is the modern fed passing as a right wing extremist
Literally the entire "Right wing" are on payrolls. Nick Fuentes just received $200,000 of bitcoin into his crypto wallet.

If somebody has a platform or marketing campaign behind them of any kind, they are being boosted by somebody.

Also worth noting that Evola's works have been soley revived by a literal Israeli Jew in Vermont from a company called INNER TRADITIONS

>>17153977
No point arguing with evolafags. If an author has a large body of work, almost every caveat to their theories would have been mentioned, if only in passing.
The argument then is the result of Evola's works and the result of the lives lead by Evolafags. Which is nothing.
Read ancient philosophy and your religion's texts instead.

>>17164006
>Hitler and all of the top Nazis were Jewish. No, I am not kidding. If you look into it, it's undeniable.
It's hard to believe you actually believe this. How much are you getting paid to do this? Lmao

>>17160048
>>17159970
>>17159861
Thanks for taking the time to write this. Do you know what books of toynbee are worth reading? I'd like to know more about his theories as they sound quite interesting.

I suppose when it comes to saving our own civilization our best hope is to cultivate master morality and lead by example in the hopes that more and more people will eventually wake up from their progressive liberal slumber. I myself only woke up within the last 2 years or so, ironically after I briefly dated an intersectional feminist. Being exposed to her blatant hate for white males, as well as her inability to realize that she's more racist and sexist than the average white male, made me realize that a significant portion of liberal are extremely gullible. That's when I started asking questions. I can only hope that as the sjw movement grows bigger and gets more exposure in my country, more people will see it for what it actually is and start question some of the liberal narratives

>>17163990
>Post proof and sources for your ridiculous claims or be laughed at indefinitely.

This shit isn't even fucking secret information, you can just google it. People are so fucking stupid with the internet they don't research things. Mussolini worked for british intelligence M15

Here is the Jewish Female Aristocrat who created and funded Italian fascism (I personally believe she was Mussolini's sister)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margherita_Sarfatti

>>17164021
Oh God, it's a real live Qtard.
Go back to the bunker boards where you belong

>>17163980

>>17164011
>it's really hard to believe a cartoonish guy who solidified Zionism for 100 years and sent millions of Germans into an un-winnable meat grinder war which resulted in Germany being financially enslaved to Anglo-Zionism imperialism was in on it
Yeah that's really hard to imagine

http://mileswmathis.com/hiller.pdf

>>17164033
????

Qtard?

Q is the latest banker operation. You know who originally coined the term "Make America Great Again?" Benito Mussolini. You know who revived the term? Patrick Buchanon, relative of Marilyn Manson, connected to the Warner Brothers family

>>17164033
Also, Q is a recycled banker script from the USSR. It was originally "Operation Trust"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trust

>>17164042
Based Miles Mathis poster.
The 20th century is a stolen one. And everything in it - all of the art, literature, philosophy and science - are designed for one purpose: consolidate and solidify the industrialist's power.
But oh tell me about subtle and useless theoretical differences between evola and plato. Let's argue about this and do nothing else.

>>17164042
You'll believe this, but "Russiagate is a hoax"
Yeah ok dude

>>17164054
>The 20th century is a stolen one. And everything in it - all of the art, literature, philosophy and science - are designed for one purpose: consolidate and solidify the industrialist's power.
Agrilogistic as fuck, you can't even articulate the depths of your unfreedom yet.
Read Timothy Morton

>>17163980
>A fed on behalf of the bankers. Mussolini was one as well.
>Mussolini was on the british intelligence payroll, was then a commited "marxist" (codeword for industrialist agent), and finally a "fascist" which was backed by Jewish aristocrats..
You sound like a schizophrenic.
>You still believe in mainstream (banker/monarch invented) narratives of history? Get up to speed here
My bad, you are a schizophrenic.
>>17163991
Bro just read the books, literally all of your misconceptions will be cleared away if you just read the damn books. If you think Kundalini is "genital worshipping snake voodoo" you really have your work cut out for you.
>>17164008
Rewrite this post but coherently so I can respond to it.

>>17164062
No I wont. You can read it and tell me about all the nuanced and useless points in it.

>>17164055
Russiagate was real, the 2016 election was rigged in favor of Donald Trump on behalf of a faction of bankers. The Democrats try to rig the election every year so they were shocked.

>>17164054
People still believe ideology is real and relevant, that's how you know the industrialist propaganda is working

>>17164063
>My bad, you are a schizophrenic.
I am a schizophrenic because the publishing houses and history keepers have been under the complete control of wealthy people invested in re-writing history to suite them.Only a child is this naive

Meanwhile you can't even debunk phantom time hypothesis

This book could be reduced to a single page and have the same effect. Bad read, Jewish ideas. Fashy goys promote Evol-homo yet don't even realize he'd rather you worship the sun than defend the white race.

>>17163991
Oh hi there. More fake Indian history to further your cause and pat yourself on the back about whichever "race" or "culture" you consider yourself to be. You clearly haven't read the source material yourself or done any actual historical research.

>>17164063

>>17164063

>>17164086
POP QUIZ: Is the Markandeya Purana a Shakta, Shaiva, or Vaishnava Purana?

>>17164063

>>17164084
>>17164095
>>17164106
You are a dumb contrarian who latches onto certain details of history and then spins a whole narrative about them. Yes, Mussolini was an interventionist during the First World War. The British funded his paper because they wanted Italy to join the war. What's the big deal? Yes, some Jews played a role in early Italian fascism - Italy had plenty of right wing Jews. What's your point?

>>17164123
>Yes, Mussolini was a british fed who went from a marxist revolutionary and had his own media venture funded and then went to Jewish-aristocrat backed fascism where he eventually tricked the Italian population into handing in their gold to the government while capitalists hyper-industralized Italy and all of it's imperialist ventures
>and opened a homosexual party island under the guise of it being a concentration camp
>What's your point?
Microscopic babybrains, no wonder they call you goyim

>>17164123
The worst part for me is how these people psychologically NEED there to be a single enemy and a cohesive comprehensive structure for their unfreedom.
What if it's just that everybody everywhere is trying every possible strategy to control as much of the world as they can and they are fucking over everyone including themselves, and no one is actually in charge and none of it makes any sense?
That's the actual situation, because the world is extremely complicated and consciousness can't handle complexity, consciousness literally exists to simplify the world around us to the point we can make relatively short term decisions for survival.
It's completely impossible for any group to control the whole world, or even a very large part of it.

>>17164145
>What if it's just that everybody everywhere is trying every possible strategy to control as much of the world as they can and they are fucking over everyone including themselves, and no one is actually in charge and none of it makes any sense?
Imagine knowing the federal reserve exists and knowing how global finance operates and still thinking this stupid shit

Oh wait, you probably don't because you're braindead goy cattle

>>17164155
That you don't get the irony of your statement proves that you know absolutely nothing about private international banking or Central banking or the Fed that wasn't spoonfed you by people like Jim Marrs.
Consider actually learning things yourself instead of being spoonfed by idealogues selling paperbacks

>>17164155
One thing I was able to get a clear view of from reading Morton's Dark Ecology was the idea of Agrilogistics and how we've never left Agriculture. Capitalism is still Agriculture. Agriculture was at the start Industrialization of natural processes.
There was no golden age, we have never been modern, we have never been free, since the day we started planting seeds on purpose

>>17164166
Who the fuck is Jim Marrs

The world being a "complicated complex" place is Neo-Liberal ted talk-tier cope propaganda to make people feel like there's still room for freedom and liberation.

He who owns the world reserve currency animates our reality on earth, and everyone below them are just micro-managerial worms wearing kneepads for instant blowjobs when needed. And below them are us, the goy cattle. Keep doing the existential ted talk cope if it makes you feel better though

>>17164144
Bro Mussolini being an interventionist doesn't somehow make him a British fed, the pacifist/interventionist split defined an era in Italian leftist politics. You're literally retarded.
>>17164145
I think there is a lot more control than most people realise, but it's definitely not as weird as conspiratards make it out to be. A lot of "conspiracies" are just spun to discredit the legitimate ones by association.

>>17154801
good post, made some n*zi larpers mad

>>17164063
>If you think Kundalini is "genital worshipping snake voodoo"
But in the end, it's exactly that.
It's about interiorized female, egalitarian and sexual power. It's from the native black Indians and not the Persian Aryans who were about Intellect, Patriarchy, Hierarchy and whiteness.
There's no way to get around that, no wonder how beautiful and resonant you find Chakra System or Kundalini or any of it.
You can find Jewish Kabbalah really impressive, but it's not fucking Aryan and never will be even it Serrano and Evola or whoever tells you it is.

>>17164184
>The world being a "complicated complex" place is Neo-Liberal ted talk-tier cope propaganda to make people feel like there's still room for freedom and liberation.
What part of "there's no one in charge and everyone is trying to fuck each other over" makes you think of freedom and liberation?

>>17164176
Yes 90% of top-down psyops are for the purpose of industrializing society against their will.

The industrialists do not follow ideologies like capitalism either, that is for peasants to try and make sense of the world. The Russian Revolution was funded by the capitalists to industrialize Russia.

It's obvious why they need psyops to Industrialize nations against the will of the population, because Industrialization is a soft form of genocide. People die, the environment dies, people's jobs disappear, people's cultures are wiped away ect.

What do people think all of this Covid shit is about? The banker's 4th industrial revolution

>>17164188
>I think there is a lot more control than most people realise
I didn't mean that there is no control. There's an overabundance of control. But no one is in charge of all that control.
Some groups are in charge of your community, or rather, parts of it. And they have cooperation with other groups in charge of other parts. And you exert control over friends or your job or whatever you can, and this goes up and down, but no one trusts anyone and no one group is in charge of the entire thing at once.

>>17164188
>Bro Mussolini being an interventionist doesn't somehow make him a British fed, the pacifist/interventionist split defined an era in Italian leftist politics. You're literally retarded.
No, Mussolini literally being on the payroll of M15 and receiving money for a media venture to popularize his name-brand which would later be used for the Fascism psyop is what made him a british fed

stop mouthing off nonsense without researching it

>>17164204
>What part of "there's no one in charge and everyone is trying to fuck each other over" makes you think of freedom and liberation?

Because if there's no one in charge that means there's still fragile possibilities for power shifts. This is not true and it is cope, subtly promoted by Ted Talk

>>17164212
Yes but what is the alternative?
To live a short and brutal life in the mud like the cavemen, hopelessly chasing giant deadly game around?
No, this is a process outside of anyone's control. A natural process, which may or may not end in destruction.
Stuff like CRISPR means it doesn't ever have to end. We can be engineered to be more Eusocial like ants now, to be actually happy and capable of living in full industrialization.
Ants and termites have been doing it for many millions of years. They invented agriculture 60 million years ago.
Poison food? No longer poison if your system is edited to handle it, even need it.

>>17164228
>that means there's still fragile possibilities for power shifts
How do you get to that idea?
Stability is security, if anything, Capital thrives on instability.
Instability is the worst unfreedom. Not knowing at all when or if your plans will ever pan out.
And that's just it: those people at the top don't have that any more than we do, or they wouldn't need to amass so much to lose.
That big giant pile of currency and goods that they insanely fight over and for, exists as a buffer so that they will not feel the unavoidable losses of instability that they CANNOT escape.
Nature is inescapable. You will lose, the only thing you can reliably try to do is minimize the possibility and severity of discomfort or death.

>>17164237
>To live a short and brutal life in the mud like the cavemen, hopelessly chasing giant deadly game around?
No the anprim shit is a psyop

The development of technology is a GOOD thing, a soft genocide via industrial revolution as imposed by cryptocrats is a BAD thing.

>a process outside of anyone's control
Not true it could easily be stopped and changed with lack of consent and a move towards self-dependence away from the central banker's supply chains

>We can be engineered to be more Eusocial like ants now, to be actually happy and capable of living in full industrialization.
lmao im sure this will happen in the short end, I personally think we're at the top of the tower of babbel. The digital world order is not sustainable in the way it is

>>17164196
>But in the end, it's exactly that.
No.
>It's about interiorized female, egalitarian and sexual power. It's from the native black Indians and not the Persian Aryans who were about Intellect, Patriarchy, Hierarchy and whiteness.
You are wrong. I told you to read the book. Please read it. The reason Kundalini is female is because it mobilises the contingent elements of the being like the body for the purposes of enlightenment - it requires your spirit to play the masculine part. This ties in perfectly well with other traditional ideas of the symbol of the Androgyne - it refers to a combination of the masculine and feminine principles. It is radically anti-egalitarian. The sexual element and some of the elements are lifted from the pre-Aryan Indian element, yes, but they are imbued with an entirely different character. Evola talks about this too. Please read the book.
>You can find Jewish Kabbalah really impressive, but it's not fucking Aryan and never will be even it Serrano and Evola or whoever tells you it is.
No one will tell you that Kabbalah is Aryan, but it is nevertheless an effective Traditional doctrine.
>>17164221
Read a book retard.

>>17164252
>Stability is security, if anything, Capital thrives on instability.
The system is very stable. The only instability is at the bottom to manage via anarcho-tyranny

>And that's just it: those people at the top don't have that any more than we do, or they wouldn't need to amass so much to lose.
Their main concern is elitist in-fighting in the same way drug cartels fight each other. There's instability in the sense they have to manage the system for their own sake, but there's never been less room for shifting in power unless it came from elites in-fighting

>>17164307
>Read a book retard.
>Read my disinfo fairy tales published by banker-funded publishing houses
dumbfuck

>No one will tell you that Kabbalah is Aryan, but it is nevertheless an effective Traditional doctrine.
The Kabbalah was forged during the Renaissance by the medici family literally a LARP text

>>17163882
>he can't articulate his point

>>17164310
>Their main concern is elitist in-fighting in the same way drug cartels fight each other.
Exactly. No one group is in control of the entire system!

>>17164307
>It is radically anti-egalitarian
Oh yeah, brainiac? Then why is Madhva Vedanta for an example, all about caste and does not allow in the lower castes at all, yet Tantra is explicitly open to any caste?
Why is it impossible for a Madhva Sangha to have a female leader, but in Tantra female leaders are a given?
Why is Tantra a Shakta thing, while Vedanta is a Vaishnava and Shaiva thing?
Why is it that there is no Kundalini in Mazdayasna, if Kundalini is Aryan?
There is no snake-fire or spine-wheels in Mazdayasna, nor is there in the RigVedic ritual system.

You fucking idiot

>>17164316
Read ANY book, retard.

>>17164338
Initiatic doctrines are by definition anti-egalitarian. If Kundalini traditions are so egalitarian, why don't they just initiate people in batches on the streets, like early Christian baptism etc? Kundalini is a hierarchical, Traditional, initiatic doctrine.
>yet Tantra is explicitly open to any caste?
Why is Buddhism open to any caste? Is Buddhism not Aryan? When it comes to initiation you are already dealing with an extreme selectiveness. If you can find a Shudra compatible with Kundalini, then his qualifications outweigh his caste status.
>but in Tantra female leaders are a given?
Depends on what Tantra you are dealing with. You can also find female priests in some Protestant churches - that doesn't make it doctrinally correct. There are bad types of Tantra. I am not arguing. I do not know the exact dynamics with women and kundalini, so I can't tell if it is as effective for them as it is for men, but if you are looking for a male instructor, they are not hard to find.
>Why is Tantra a Shakta thing, while Vedanta is a Vaishnava and Shaiva thing?
Read the book and you will find out. You take on the role of Shiva in Kundalini Yoga, btw. Kundalini Shakti becomes your bride and subordinate.
>Why is it that there is no Kundalini in Mazdayasna, if Kundalini is Aryan?
Why would there be? It's an esoteric doctrine.
>There is no snake-fire or spine-wheels in Mazdayasna, nor is there in the RigVedic ritual system.
Okay? And?

>>17164368
>Is Buddhism not Aryan?
Already dealt with that. Buddhism and Jainism are explicitly self-identified non-vedic.
>Total ignorance of Mazdayasna
Please, will you consider learning about these things from the source material, and expanding to things not covered in your pet books?
How can you claim to know what is or isn't Aryan if you don't know what an Aryan is or where they come from or have read anything they wrote.
Mazdayasna is an esoteric tradition.

Tantra was indeed a popular religion. Read the history of Madhva Vedanta, specifically the religious context.

And finally, how can you think honestly that a casteless society is anti-egalitarian just because the guru-chela relationship remains?

>>17164063
Don't bother replying to literal schizos, it's just a waste of your time

>>17164084
Just shut the fuck up, retard

yes
YES

>>17164144
You are the definition of dunning kruger

>>17164368
Just for a specific example: in Madhva, there's different eternal abodes after moksha, and some souls never get out of reincarnation and some actually fall eternally into the hellworlds.

I mean shit, consider the Vaishnava Cosmology compared to any of the more Dravidian schools like Shaivism and Shaktism which heavily lean on abstraction, Impersonalism and monism. Impersonalism and Monism are inherently egalitarian. They don't even recognize the soul as distinct.
I use Madhva as an example for it's contrast, in Madhva, difference in quality and quantity are real and permanent.
Your soul is different from your body is different from other souls and bodies and all these are different from God and his subordinate entities (including you, but I mean consorts and demigods and spiritual beings and so on and so forth).
Truly hierarchical. Eternally.

>>17164425
You seem very intimidated judging by the amount of non-arguments and evasion in your posts. As I said earlier, you are wrong about Tantra and Kundalini.
>Mazdayasna is an esoteric tradition.
It would be more accurate to say that Zoroastrianism had an esoteric tradition. Zoroastrianism in itself is not necessarily esoteric, as it also has an exoteric aspect.
>Tantra was indeed a popular religion.
Kundalini practices were not a "popular" aspect of Tantra. There is no point in discussing popular Tantra trash when actual Tantra offers so much more worth looking at.
>And finally, how can you think honestly that a casteless society is anti-egalitarian just because the guru-chela relationship remains?
We are not talking about a casteless society at all. Esoteric and initiatic orders always exist outside society. The aim is not to impose castelessness on society, but rather to draw out all the worthy elements to the esoteric order regardless of caste background.
>>17164452
I can't help myself, unfortunately.

>>17156666
checked

>>17164525
But that's egalitarian you moron

>>17164506
You are providing information in your post but you are not making any arguments.
>Impersonalism and Monism are inherently egalitarian.
This is plainly untrue. Argue your point if you are that confident about it. Perhaps a mangled, profane monism would be inherently egalitarian. Monism in itself has been the core of many great and veritable spiritual doctrines and is by no means mutually exclusive with hierarchy.
>They don't even recognize the soul as distinct.
This is a matter of practical convenience and not a real cornerstone of doctrine. Of course, context is important here too.
>Your soul is different from your body is different from other souls and bodies and all these are different from God and his subordinate entities (including you, but I mean consorts and demigods and spiritual beings and so on and so forth).
I don't think you understand "monism", whatever it is that you are referring to with that term. The existence of difference is obvious. That difference should necessarily imply rupture is a totally different matter.

>>17164525
I see by "esoteric tradition" you just mean "harmful antisocial cult" because that's what you described

>>17164561
No it isn't, you dumb fuck, because you are dealing with a ruthlessly selective tradition. The selection criteria simply do not include caste. This isn't even a symptom of anti-caste egalitarianism, since Tantra does not aim to impose castelessness on society - Tantra isn't a form of fucking social activism. Tantric spiritual orders disregard caste discrimination (in the original sense of the word) because they have better, far superior methods of discrimination, yet they also acknowledge that caste has its place in society and social life, making no claims against it.

>>17164478
Goycattle cope

>>17164573
Are you some sort of merchant faggot, anon? You want your society nice and clean, sanitised, "productive" and obsessed with wagecucking, conformism, social rituals etc? Sorry to break it to you, but traditionally the aristocracy and priestly castes didn't give a shit about that. They cared about results in their respective fields.

>>17164567
Monism or Non-dualism if you prefer, is where there is constitutionally and quantitatively only one existing object, in this case Brahman.
Madhva is an ontological pluralism. Many objects.

Stop being so obtuse, are you like 20yo and homeschooled or something?

>>17164591
You don't actually know anything about varnashrama dharma, do you? Because it's someone's job to see to maintaining social duty and organization, and guess which

>>17164595
>Monism or Non-dualism if you prefer, is where there is constitutionally and quantitatively only one existing object, in this case Brahman.
I feel like the words "quantitatively" and "object" are very troublesome in this context. "Object" already implies an atomised and self-contained unit. If we think of Brahman in the way we think of objects like tables, yes, it's pretty ridiculous to take the Monist perspective, because Brahman gains the properties of a "thing". However, if you think of Brahman as that which permeates all spiritual and material things, then the perspective becomes understandable.
At least traditionally, the dualist/monist distinction was a simple question of what you take as your point of reference - the Unconditioned or a middle ground that leads to the Unconditioned (Atman etc). The end goal remains the same, namely, identification with the Unconditioned.
>>17164618
Not that of esoteric monks, who recruit only a small number of people and retain the right to recruit those most qualified.

>>17164624
You should read about object-oriented ontology.
Also, esoteric priests as a specialist subclass would be like those black sheep rich kids that join new age cults and essentially exist to eat Daddy's money.
They should be exterminated, not aspired to. They are the opposite of aristocracy and elite, they are the people too connected to be set to meaningful endeavors.
And I don't mean mercantile or industrial endeavors.

>>17164660
>You should read about object-oriented ontology.
If you have a point you want to make, I am happy to hear it.
>Also, esoteric priests as a specialist subclass would be like those black sheep rich kids that join new age cults and essentially exist to eat Daddy's money.
I refuse to believe you don't realise how farcical a comparison this is.
There is nothing wrong with spiritual pursuits. Esoteric, initiatic and monastic spirituality is merely the apex of spiritual endeavours and demands the greatest ascesis and sacrifice.

>>17164684
The coptic desert fathers didn't require so much of other people's money to accomplish so much more

>>17164702
are you just shitposting now

I started with mountains but got bored after 10 pages.

>>17157542
This is such a niche bullshit subset of metaphysics I can't even fuck off lol that's not what you tell someone when they ask you why metaphysics is important.

>>17157681
The main questions of metaphsics are foundational things like: ontology, Identity and change, Space and time, Causality, Necessity and Possiblity (modality), cosmology and cosmogony, The mind body problem, The question of free will and philosophy of mathematics and logic. Like just by reading the Wikipedia page of metaphysics you realize that your metaphysics lays the groundwork for your epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. It is a practical necessity to figure it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

>>17164525
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about tantra and kundalini, is it worth looking into? Any good intro books? (Sorry if you already answered this question elsewhere, but I'm not gonna bother reading your back and forth with the schizo)

>>17164021
I hate it when people say this but you really need to take your meds. There's conspiracy theories, and there's schizo. This is pure schizo.

>>17165212
He's not schizo just dumb and / or a disinfo agent.

>>17164020
For Toynbee, just read the Somervell abridged volumes of 'A Study of History'.
I spoke about them in another thread yesterday, the short of it is Toynbee made astute observations and developed an interesting framework for understanding history, but then bucked against the conclusions one would naturally draw from his work to make space for Western exceptionalism which - as another anon pointed out - probably had something to do with his involvement with the Tavistock institute and belief that building a supranational one-world government was a necessary step.
You should be able to pick out the value in his work from his own eccentric bullshit, it's a pretty hard gear shift from the first abridged volume to the second (I still think the second is well worth reading, it's not merely his own nutty beliefs in there).

>>17154138
Literally and unironically this. Also why Dugin is so suppressed.

>>17165730
>Also why Dugin is so suppressed.
Talking of which, did you notice how many of Dugin's books were delisted from Amazon? At the very least Amazon in the UK.
Even his book on Heidegger.

>>17165029
It's the tradition that I am looking for initiation into. Start with Evola's Yoga of Power for now. I am also currently reading Kundalini Awakening by John Selby, but the author is a New Age hippy moron so you need the background to make out the legitimate stuff from the cookie cutter hippy garbage mixed in.

>>17159970
How is a working class housewife, who would vote for Trump in spite of being a woman in a low income household [bold]not[/bold] buying into a white supremacist narrative?

>>17153977
YES.

Anything Evola is worth reading.

Anybody who says otherwise is a Jewish shill.

>>17164477
Underrated

>>17166800
Evola is literally shilled by Jews

Ehud Sperling

>>17166932
Really? How do I know you're not a jew?

>>17167261
>>17166800
>it's da jooooz
You're exactly the kind of person that makes me question whether reading Evola is a good idea

>>17163980
>>17163990
>>17164054
>>17164062
>>17164063
>>17164077
>>17164212
>>17164144
>>17164176
>>17164237
>>17164271
>>17164660
>Industrialists
Are you, inspired by the writings of Ted Kazinski and TheTechnologicalSocietybyJacquesEllul? If not, what is the basis for your assertions?

>>17167261
Why don’t you just google what I just fucking told you and see for yourself so it won’t matter if I’m a Jew

>>17167469
>leaving comments all over the thread calling people stupid
>hasn’t even read Evola
You pant shitting dumbfuck just leave the thread, part of Evola’s philosophy is “it’s le’ jews” so if that filters you then leave the board

>>17167503
Ted is 100% a industrialist psyop why do people think he’s fucking shilled at Barnes and noble and the amazon best seller list

Jacques is better, I prefer Miles Mathis

>>17157181
I am a philosophag, and maybe I was indeed filtered but I have read evola and friends extensively for two years, and strongly believed his positions until it became evident to me that they are logically, methodologically and psychologically untenable

>>17164945
Your definition of metaphysics is dumb and you're dumb.
>mind body problem
>philosophy of mathematics
Come the fuck on. Neither of those are fucking metaphysics. Philosophy of mind is what talks about things like mind-body, free will, and philosophy of mathematics/logic are both entirely different groups of philosophy from metaphysics
Are you writing from the fucking 18th century?

>>17162410
>It refers to detaching yourself from the materialist perspective and adopting a higher point of view - that of spirit.
Yes, but as you can see from how you phrase it, plus the example you brought and his general judgment of the arts in the modern world (plus the critique of contemporary customs in matters of love you find in Metaphysics of Sex) you can see that his detachment is always coupled with the assumption that the modern world is essentially materialist. Detachment as a form of inner resistence or recognition that you are not your material self has been proposed already in Plato, the Stoics, and the Neoplatonists and it is a viable philosophical point - as is, overall, Evola's Platonic metaphysics. But he never defends his ethics (detachment) and metaphysics with arguments, and seems rather to present vague anthropological inquiries, which again, are very badly researched, to prove that the world is in some state of decay which somehow justifies, or supports by contrast, the adherence to a Platonic ethics/metaphysics. This is very weak, methodologically and argumentatively speaking. His cultural analysis is at best persuasive but reveals to be extremely weak if submitted to rigorous scrutiny. For instance: on what ground does he describe the phenomenon of "lucid inebriation"? That is barely a personal rant based on experience supported - at best - by outdated literature, much like in the Metaphysics of Sex he couples obscure religious books with constant quotes from Weiniger to justify his view on the roles of masculinity and femininity. All his cultural analysis is extremely poorly researched, wield predictable results, and is conducted on the base of a philosphical frame he superimposes to all the evidence he brings without ever bothering offering arguments for why the reader should buy into that frame in the first place.

>Evola understands Nietzsche
One of the few things that are clear from Nietzsche, at least from my reading of it, is that buying into any metaphysical system is, essentially, the same as buying into fiction (a "system of metaphors" from his writings on truth in the extramoral sense). I strongly doubt that a man who dubbed his philosophy as a "reversed platonism" would ever be reconcilable with one who sets as a premise of his major book that the world is structured according to an unchangeable metaphysical order. The only thing they have in common is that Nietzsche historical and cultural analysis is also very poor, but it is compensated by fairly good argumentative abilities and deep psychological insight (e.g. genealogy of morals describes a complex psychological mechanism that actually exists, but its attempt to trace it historically into specific castes fails miserably given how little evidence he brings).

>>17165730
>Putin's philosopher
>suppressed

>>17156295
I find it funny that you're seething so hard about an old thread that you mixed two posters together in your head and are still thinking about it several weeks after the original thread.
On the other hand, the concept that the Traditionalists were Platonists is really dumb, so you might have reason to remember it.

>>17167866
All of these are subsets of metaphysics? lol what

>>17168005
If he claims that the world is ordered according to an a-temporal metaphysical order of unchanging values, and that the temporal plane changes cyclically, then he is a literal platonist

>>17168005
I posted a thread about Guenon on here a year or so ago, and then I found 6 months later that some Anon had made a meme image where he got me mixed up with someone else and referred to us both as "Guenon-fag". The schizo headcanon can be strong sometimes.

>>17168034
Any university in the Anglo-American has separate departments for philosophy of mind, philosophy of mathematics, and metaphysics. Merely because things were once considered metaphysics doesn't mean they still are.

>>17168103
Just because several departments study different aspects of a thing doesn't mean that they're different fields. If a university has a 2 separate department for metaethics and normative and applied ethics doesn't mean that they're not both ethics.
>>17164945
Forgot to add the study of first causes to that list.

>>17166688
The burden of proof is on you. There are plenty of reasons why people would've voted for Trump. Hillary tried selling herself as a non-establishment candidate in spite of being a former first lady and secretary of state, it just stunk. I'm not American so I can't presuppose the main reasons for why Americans voted how they did, but if I were American, I would've seen in Clinton a continuation of Bush & Obama's foreign policy, an extremely hawkish candidate who joked about invading Iran and hardballed Russia over Syria. As a European I didn't want more yank regime change proxy wars to prop up your damn petro dollar and displace millions of refugees that Europe has to deal with, only for us to be called racist in spite of the fact that you were the ones carpet bombing hundreds of thousands of Arabs.

Brexit, I get Brexit, I voted to leave, and all we've heard is how racist, xenophobic, uneducated, stupid and misled we have been, from primarily university educated middle class twats. Except I'm from a middle class liberal background and half German so you really cannot pretend that you know my reasons for voting. I voted because I didn't feel the "democratic" process for electing to European Parliament truly held those cronies to account, and that's not even considering the fact that we had even less say on the European commission which is the legislative body with right of initiative. I thought the Eurozone made vastly different economies eg Germany and Greece, sharing a currency precluded a positive and flexible response to the recession.

But now, I'm so fucking tired of having arrogant, self absorbed pricks thinking they know my motives, that I my primary motivation for voting for Brexit, or hypothetically voting for Trump, would be to piss cunts like that off. When the weight of the mainstream media and big business magnates is behind your candidate, and admonishing me for being an evil white male, fuck you, I'll vote however you tell me not to.

>>17168103
>Any university in the Anglo-American
>Anglo-American

>>17167503
Kaczynski is smart but he's not the alpha and omega of anti-modern thought.
>>17167970
>the assumption that the modern world is essentially materialist
This would be a correct assumption.
As to the rest of what you say, Evola himself scorns persuasion. He attempts to inform and to expound a doctrine to those who wish to receive it - the sceptics do not concern him. Those who do not share his starting premises will never understand. What is important is to develop the understanding of those who do. Most of the other shit you say is just buzzwords and baseless assertions.
>For instance: on what ground does he describe the phenomenon of "lucid inebriation"?
You can read his book for that.
>conducted on the base of a philosphical frame he superimposes to all the evidence he brings without ever bothering offering arguments for why the reader should buy into that frame in the first place
He doesn't care if you want to buy into it or not. He's also not dealing with a mere "philosophical frame", but with a worldview. It's an existential matter, not an intellectual one.
>Nietzsche
Read the book. Evola explains Nietzsche as a reaction occurring within the frame of a false dichotomy - a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He deals very extensively with Nietzsche's views on nihilism.

An Evola thread on /lit/ and no one's posted the Evola reading guide? does anyone here actually read books

Evola bases his entire knowledge of Tantra from Buddhist works and from correspondence with Sir John Woodroffe.
How can you possibly take that seriously at all, much less consider it authoritative.
Read some fucking Agamas, you pseud fuck.
Or failing that task, at least read Woodroffe (Shakti And Shakta, as well as The Serpent Power are both on libgen)

One of the funniest things to people that actually know Hinduism in depth is that Tantras are the worst degeneration.
The Vedas are the perfect text, Upanishads came later to make them clear to lesser men in lesser ages, then the Puranas came about because lesser men in lesser ages could no longer understand the Upanishads, finally, Agamas (Tantras) are the final most degenerate form, for the most degenerate men in the most degenerate age.

>>17168083
The claim that Guenon, and by extension Traditionalists, were Platonists is patently false. Guenon grounds his metaphysics in Advaita Vedanta and the entire Tradionalist project is built within that framework.