/lit/ - Literature

Is being God's cuck that fun?

Take acid and stick your own cock up your asshole and you've got the full Evola experience.

>>17610754
Do people really believe this is like a good mocking refutation or something? Some gays made a pot. So what? I really don’t get how this is supposed to mock muh Traditionalists. The first pic is an equality drawn/painted work of fiction.

>>17610611
/pol/tards do neither of them and instead spend their entire day masturbating and seething about trannies on 4chan

>Do people really believe this is like a good mocking refutation or something? Some gays made a pot. So what? I really don’t get how this is supposed to mock muh Traditionalists. The first pic is an equality drawn/painted work of fiction.

We have a lot of teenage leftists here at the moment and they don't read anything but critiques of capitalism so they mostly shitpost.

>>17610611
I prefer the stylized aesthetics of older Harvest Moon titles.

>>17610611
Why don't traditionalists respect and imitate their polyamorous African forefathers?

>>17610611
>be a rebel
>do shit that nobody would bat an eye at

>>17610611
I prefer the stylized aesthetics of older Harvest Moon titles.

>>17610611
>Start a family
Yeah okay but how tho?

>>17610881
Sex

>>17610611
>just pretend you believe in Christianity once a week and then do this until you die
Evropa saved.

>>17610873
Based

>>17610611
Evola himself recommended these
>Evola cited and encouraged the youth to read Plato (with reference in particular to The Republic), Dante (with reference in particular to De Monarchia), Joseph de Maistre, Donoso Cortés, Bismarck, Metternich, Gaetano Mosca, Pareto and Michels.[89][90]
Also read the Neoplatonists, Hermeticists, Nietzsche, Blavatsky, Guenon, Manly P. Hall, Israel Regardie, Dion Fortune

>>17611136
And I forgot Eliphas Levi

>>17611136
Don't pay attention to this retard OP, just read Evola and get over with it, or else you are going to read 50 books just for one

>>17610678
Yes

>>17610925
That's gross can I skip that step

>>17610611
Rightists belong in camps

>>17610775
Well I suppose the idea is that whatever nerds are calling “tradition” on the Internet is highly selective and historically short sighted and that thorough research shows that the cultures these nerds draw inspiration from were far more heterogenous and “degenerate” than any so-called traditionalist would like to believe. It’s funny you reduce the point to “gays made a vase” because you must surely know how institutional homosexuality was one of the defining characteristics of classical antiquity (in distinction with Christian modernity). Anyway whatever “tradition” you want to point to as the basis of life, there is an older tradition that contradicts it. That’s because culture arises out of material circumstances and as they change, so will our standards of behavior and social institutions change.

>>17610925
Yeah, and how do I get that?

>>17610611
Evola did neither of those things

>>17612117
That's because he was a philosopher

Can you please stop posting screencaps of that twitter account. You do it every day.
1950s America IS NOT Tradition!

>>17610611
The GREEKS

>>17610678
Hell no

>>17611136
Skip Blavatsky and any theosophy nonsense.

>>17610678
It is fucking boring
My dad made me go to church and it is so fucking boring

>>17612150
No, Theosophy was an important part of that whole zeitgeist.

>>17610611
Yes, that preliminary material is also Evola. Just read until things become clear.
>>17610775
It's particularly ironic because someone like Evola for example would immediately draw parallels between the decadence of previous cycle and the decadence of this cycle. Moreover, it's not like any Traditionalist denied that homosexual behaviour has existed in the past.
>>17610853
They do bat eyes at that, quite a bit, actually. You must not know very many Christians. I know several preachers who got arrested for preaching publicly (perfectly legal in my country) and in places like Frances churches get torched regularly. With that said, I agree, "going to church" is a pretty milquetoast form of rebellion. It's a 1950s type of "traditionalism".
>>17611136
I don't recognise the last three names in your list but Blavatsky absolutely does not belong there.
>>17611905
>the cultures these nerds draw inspiration from were far more heterogenous and “degenerate” than any so-called traditionalist would like to believe
Exceedingly ironic to post this in an Evola thread.
>institutional homosexuality was one of the defining characteristics of classical antiquity
Institutional homosexuality, really? What institutions in classical antiquity dealt with the propagation and application of homosexuality, then? Most of the talk about "homosexuality in ancient Greece" is just a tired bullshit tropes with no substance behind them. Homosexuality enjoyed a certain prominence then that it did not enjoy for example in periods like the 19th century. That does not make it "institutional" or somehow normative.
>Anyway whatever “tradition” you want to point to as the basis of life, there is an older tradition that contradicts it. That’s because culture arises out of material circumstances and as they change, so will our standards of behavior and social institutions change.
Also very ironic thing to post in an Evola thread, but for the exactly opposite reasons.
>>17612135
Based.

>>17611905
>institutional homosexuality was one of the defining characteristics of classical antiquity
You know nothing. That pot is literally a fake. You parrot memes that make you feel good like every pseud.

>>17610611
whats with those cringe twitter account
I agree with the message I guess, but there's no need to be a pompous ass about it

>>17610611
>church
Cringe.

>>17610802
lmao

>>17610611
>what if we all just did christer cargo culture would that stop d e g e n e r a c y?

>>17610611
>be a rebel by conforming
neither you tradfags or tranny communists are doing anything "the system" or society even notices, much less cares about

>>17612714
>implying the system and society have any awareness, perception or clarity of vision
Can a bee hive perceive or care for anything, anon? Modern society is always sleepwalking.

>>17612714
Cope.

>>17612128
That’s no excuse

>>17612740
you're shouting a wall. what's the point of that? either shut up or tear the wall down. but as a joke haha I'm kidding of course
>>17612747
>Q tards are now trad somehow
>implying this affected the government in any way other than giving it an excuse to strengthen surveillance on you

>>17612234
>>17612418
>what is the Sacred band
>what is pederasty
Incoming cope in 3...2...1...

>>17612747
The system cultivates opponents to stress-test itself. The house always wins. It plays a much longer game than you do. It breeds people to service itself just as much as it breeds them to harden itself.

>>17612793
Going to church won't change anything political, I agree. However, you are deluded if you think that nothing is changing overall. The current status quo can't continue. No one wants to support the ruling class anymore and something has to give.
>>17612801
>what are LGBTQ+ clubs
>what is Epstein Island
There is nothing exceptional about your anecdotes. Moreover, trying to reduce the Sacred Band of Thebes to some gay sex mafia is exceedingly disingenuous.

>>17610611
This guy is such reactionist faggot, victim complex and all. He truly believes everyone is out to get him. Probably daydreams constantly of people verbally abusing him, when no one around really gives a shit.

>>17612858
Please explain to me in concrete terms without memes, irony, deflection, or bullshit how the Sacred Band or pederasty are not examples of homosexual institutions in ancient Greece

>>17612874
Well, first of all, pederasty is not an institution. As to the Sacred Band of Thebes, its very name refers to spiritual, not sexual overtones. That the band consisted of pairs of men who were devoted to each other in various ways - some of them, most probably sexual - does not make it a homosexual organisation. It is much better described as a military-religious organisation with some homosexual elements, rather than a homosexual institution. The conduct of the band was not divorced from sacred traditions such as oaths of loyalty and religious rituals. The strong bond between warriors was intended to reflect spiritual value and dedication to fight for one's comrade to the bitter end. It's not a gay sex gang, it's a legitimate military organisation with perhaps some dubious practices, but it was certainly not a homosexual institution.
Furthermore, as I already stated, your two anecdotes are not without parallel in any society. I am certain that we could draw many comparisons if we felt like it. To draw the conclusion that Greece was some homosexual paradise just because there were instances of homosexuality does not make any sense. Pederasty was an extremely specific phenomenon and it was hardly uncontroversial. One military band belonging to one singular city state is also hardly evidence for a generalised and "institutionalised" phenomenon of homosexuality. Using your line of argument, we could even argue that there is "institutional transsexualism" in Russia, since there are networks of various underground transsexual and drag clubs that give closed-door performances even though there are anti-queer laws in force for the public sphere.

>>17613013
Pederasty was never codified in law so I guess it depends on your definition of institution, but it was pervasive and normalized enough for me to count it. Maybe cultural practice is a better way to put it. It still serves my original point.

Your argument that homosexuality was only accidental to the Sacred Band does not make it any less homosexual. It’s gay, there’s no denying that. It had military and religious aspects, but that only serves to show that military and religious ideas were amenable to homosexual practices.

You completely misunderstood the point of my first post if you think I’m trying to paint Greece as an exceptionally gay culture. My point was that often, cultures/societies that traditionalists point to as examples of Tradition contain disparate elements, some of which would revolt the sensibilities of traditionalists. This is because no culture is homogenous enough to be consistent with the a single moral, political, and aesthetic sensibility. I appreciate the qualityposy, though.

>>17613087
>but it was pervasive and normalized enough for me to count it
This is an even more contentious claim, even "institutionalised" practices are not necessarily pervasive or normalised. Take for example critical race theory today.
>Maybe cultural practice is a better way to put it. It still serves my original point.
How? Again, no serious person would deny that these practices have existed in the past, exist today and will certainly continue to exist in the future. What is objectionable is this completely unjustified memetic claim that the Classical world was somehow some gay pride paradise. Sodomy (not homosexuality, which is a 17th century invention) has always been broadly considered abominable. Just because it had a bigger part to play in Classical societies does not mean that it was "pervasive" or of high status.
>Your argument that homosexuality was only accidental to the Sacred Band does not make it any less homosexual. It’s gay, there’s no denying that. It had military and religious aspects, but that only serves to show that military and religious ideas were amenable to homosexual practices.
This is total nonsense. An institution has a purpose and a function - the purpose of the Sacred Band of Thebes was war and presumably going off of the name and the associated practices and culture, sacrality. That there may have been homosexual behaviour - even extensive homosexual behaviour - does not fundamentally alter the character of the institution, which was geared not towards the promotion or organisation of homosexual behaviour, but towards war. Every other feature is obviously incidental.
>You completely misunderstood the point of my first post if you think I’m trying to paint Greece as an exceptionally gay culture. My point was that often, cultures/societies that traditionalists point to as examples of Tradition contain disparate elements, some of which would revolt the sensibilities of traditionalists. This is because no culture is homogenous enough to be consistent with the a single moral, political, and aesthetic sensibility. I appreciate the qualityposy, though.
I am honoured. However, your views do not do justice to the Traditionalist perspective. The cycles of decadence are not a new concept, in fact I am sure you have seen the whole "strong men hard times" meme at least twenty times by now. You should be familiar with it. Moreover, some Traditionalists had very sophisticated analyses of the causes, nature and effects of these disparate cultural forces, in addition to acknowledging the naturally heterogeneous nature of cultures.

You retards will always be lost so long as you define "Tradition" according to outer forms and customs rather than the transcedent, nonhuman dimension that underlies the entire universe.

Do any of you actually read Evola? How have you not figured this out yet?

>>17614404
There are generally two types of Evola posters: The guy who makes fun of Ride the Tiger without having read it, and /pol/tards who haven't read Evola and think he was pro-50s America.

>>17610611
>Start a family
How the fuck should we afford that.
tfw white collar couple so we earn too much for benefits but not enough to be able to afford a comfortable life with kids

>>17610611
For an actual answer, Evola is pretty clear on his own but it helps to have read Indo-European mythology, Plato, Aristotle and Nietzsche. Guenon as well possibly but Evola does a decent enough job of explaining Guenon's takes.
>>17611136
>Blavatsky, Manly P. Hall, Israel Regardie, Dion Fortune
Don't do this, you can read them after but they're by no means necessary. The only link is that people like Blavatsky drew from the same sources as Evola and Guenon but interpreted them very differently.

>>17610853
I was attacked for protesting abortion by litteraly standing silent in place in a public square looking at a church.
I lost my job at the time because you leftists are so fragile you can't bear the slightest opposition to your sacraments
your opponents litteraly standing in place, silent is too much for you to bear.

>>17612234
Thank you for your posts, I always enjoy reading them.

>>17612150
this.
quite litteraly anti-initiation

>>17612181
it's subversion.
>>17612161
because he made you.

>>17612234
>With that said, I agree, "going to church" is a pretty milquetoast form of rebellion. It's a 1950s type of "traditionalism".
gotta start somewhere before you have them pratiche perpetual prayer and so on.

>>17612150
>>17614459
>>17614464
Are you saying Theosophy is anti-initatic because you've actually figured this out yourself, or because Evola and Guenon just so happened to not like them? I've read both, btw.

>>17612801
>what is the Sacred band
an overvalued military unit of chads and twinks which existed for about a couple generations in Thebes despite getting its ass handed to it in every major battle it fought in.

>start a family
I would if I could... bitch
going to die alone

>>17614469
the second.
Both evola and guenon themselves are on the verge for me.

>>17614488
Don't worry, even if you got a wife you would realise that you couldn't possibly afford to have children because you'd either need to cut your income in half with one of you staying home, or pay for childcare which ends up costing as much as the after-tax pay you'd be earning anyway. Not to mention the cost of living in a bigger place.

>>17614469
Because I figured out myself that Blavatsky and Co. are nutjobs who aren't grounded in intellectual sanity. I know the things they believe. Can't say I ever felt as stupefied reading Evola and Guenon as I did reading Blavatsky.

>>17614493
Whatever.
>>17614506
Blavatsky's books filter alot of people but she's about as sound as most other occultist if you know how to read her. Honestly the beef Evola and Guenon have with Theosophy and especially Anthroposophy is completely overblown when both are valid pathways to anyone who knows what the fuck they're doing.

I noticed most Evola/Guenon fanboys DON'T know what they're doing beside spamming fashwave memes, so I'm not surprise they just repeat whatever things they read about Blavatsky or Anthroposophy with no real thought or experience informing their opinions.

the west has been what you call "degenerate" for centuries
give up and convert to islam already

>>17614520
I don't like how Muslims look. They are little brown men, or sometimes blacks
Just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically

>>17614524
kek
>>17614520
Islam is just as degenerate, they just pretend not to be. Any muslim that moves to the west becomes a degenerate faggot eventually. Islam only works when it's isolated in some desert cave.

>>17614533
magian civilization for you

>>17614455
>tfw anon implies he can recognise my autistic posting style regardless of the thread

>>17612569
>stop larping pagan!
I love this line because it shows this image was generated by pure seething from some atheist incel who was made fun of for trying to use some sort of vague idea of "paganism" as a fashion statement. no I am not christian, I am an atheist myself, but that doesn't mean self identified """"pagans""" are not hilariously cringy larpers

>>17614459
You are right anon
http://mileswmathis.com/beat.pdf

>>17614616
>I am an atheist
self-own lol

>>17614616
*tips fedora*

>>17614663
>>17614643
im not trying to say anything positive about atheism, just being honest and calling out ""pagan"" LARPers

>>17610611
your horoscope

>>17614675
*tips harder*
You are clearly one of the "good ones", my sir!

>>17614705
t. false flagging pagan larper

>>17614675
thank you good sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar indeed!

>>17614584
we all can. we all know one another in here

>>17614708
I am not false flagging you at all, retard, I am not a Christian - I just think you are sad and pathetic.

>>17614722
>tfw the anonymous free speech imageboard isn't actually anonymous at all

>>17614734
why? because i called out pagan larpers? because i felt it appropriate to point out that i wasn't christian myself because it was obvious that if i didnt the first response would be accusing me of being so with " seething christfag" type shitposts?

im genuinely curious about why my post made you so supremely butthurt if you arent a pagan larper, please elaborate

>>17614756
Ne he's right, your comment added nothing of value

>>17614756
Because you simultaneously demeaned pagans by comparing them to atheists (a Christian argument in the first place) and rather than stop there you even said further by saying "atheist incel" despite being an atheist yourself, thus undermining the reputation of your own group in an attempt to simp for Christians. Then, upon being made the subject of the easily predictable (and highly deserved) ad hominem characteristic of 4chan, you double down on >>17614675 your pathetic simping and clarify extra hard that you wouldn't dare actually assert your own views and are just trying to shit on the enemies of Christians. All this, combined with your tradcath zoomer vocabulary makes you a rather unappealing creature, even assuming that you actually are an atheist (and perhaps especially if you actually are an atheist).

>>17614770
it wasn't meant to "add value", i wasnt participating in any sort of discussion or debate, i was just replying to a retarded image and making fun of it. this is a pretty bizarre take and personally i dont believe its actually the reason you people are getting butthurt about what I posted

>I can't wait to get myself a trad wife and have lots of white babies!

>>17614742
ask the glowie here, you know who.
He even knows if you paid rent for march allready.

>>17614785
>tfw unironically gonna have a trad wife and make more black babies

white boys ya'll need to step it up and stop being trannies

>>17614785
>I can't help but insult those who don't live for hedonism since their behaviour badly reflects on my autism.

>>17614782
>Because you simultaneously demeaned pagans
kek yea thats what I thought, you're a butthurt pagan larper lmao

>>17614791
>tfw he even knows the local glowie
I am starting to think that I am the only guy here who doesn't recognise other posters.

>>17614802
I am a perennialist and you, my friend, are a little bitch

>>17610754
Western and Helenic are two completely different cultures and civilzations, with a thousand years apart from each other.
Homosexuality has always been disgusting and frowned upon in the Western tradition.

>>17610611
>Christian "tradition"
>Embracing a foreign, jewish, end times death cult.
>Rebel by becoming your invaders cuckold
Christianity only makes sense if you are literally a sand nigger

>>17613013
>>17613087
>>17613139
Good read thanks, anons. Any traditionalist writers you can recommend that acknowledge the heterogeneity of cultures? I'd love to read a more nuanced traditionalist perspective like yours. Sometimes the lack of rigor in traditionalist thought makes it lean more towards orthodoxy than a real worldview.

>>17614822
so a larper

>>17610678
Dude. Say what you will about religious conservatism but pic related was allowed to get a virgin wife BEFORE he got rich. This guy has three kids, while in secular parts of America the bottom 80% of men don’t even get Chad’s leftovers until they hit the wall. If my parents hadn’t abandoned their traditional religion, I would have gotten a virgin bride. Now all I have are hambeast roasties to pick from. God is good. Man was a fool to think he could deviate from the perfect system and not be completely destroyed.

>>17614855
>the thousand prayer stare

>>17614850
The Traditionalism I am referring to is capital T Traditionalism. Evola has interesting commentary on the heterogeneous influences on civilisation and also on things like sexuality and homosexuality as well.

>>17614782
>you even said further by saying "atheist incel" despite being an atheist yourself, thus undermining the reputation of your own group in an attempt to simp for Christians
I like how acknowledging that all people who have a certain belief system are not automatically all perfect means you are "undermining" the belief sytem, the fuck went through your head when you typed this?

OH MY GOD SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT EVOLA
SHUT
UP
THERE IS NO INSIGHT TO BE GAINED FROM THIS
YOU ARE NOT A TRAD YOU'RE AN ANTISOCIAL DUMBASS ON AN ANIME BOARD
GO OUTSIDE
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>17614946
There's a difference between acknowledging that some of your ideological allies have faults and calling them incels lmao, the latter is a mega cucked thing to do.
>>17614947
Meds now.

>>17614968
I'm straight edge as fuck, I'm just fucking sick of every day there being an evola thread posted by fat fingers that immediately go to their shrivelled dick as they jerk off to being the enlightened nobility that will usher in the retvrn to tradition rather than being the product of the degeneracy they pretend to despise.

>>17614947
>YOU'RE AN ANTISOCIAL
What can I do to change that?
>GO OUTISDE
I have been, it hasn't helped.

>>17614983
idk, try a self help book like How to Make Friends and Influence People
If you want to read actually good philosophy read Justice as Fairness by John Rawls. Liberalism is a lot better than whatever continental superfascist horseshit Evola's peddling.

>>17614994
>How to Make Friends and Influence People
I've read that book actually, it's not very good at all.

>>17615007
I'm just spitballing. Once the pandemic blows over maybe join a club somewhere? Find a casual sports team in your city to join?

>>17614947
>RIGHT WING LITERATURE?
>AAAAAAAAAAA I'M GOING INSANE
>HELP ME AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN

>>17615023
I know, you haven't read the book yourself and just recommend it because it sounds good.
This is the worst type of advice, if you don't have anything that actually worked for you in this type of situation I would prefer it if you just told me so and stopped complaining that I am anti social
Same with the clubs thing, you are just repeating that because you've heard it elsewhere. You are not in any clubs

>>17615026
How's that retvrn to tradition going anon? Has the wall been built yet? Have the Jews been stopped?
I hope you follow this traditionalist intellectual titan you guys post about here every day and never reproduce.

>>17615040
I'll profess that I haven't read the book, and apologize for giving that advice. I have joined clubs, and have a close circle of friends I've gained just by finding new hobbies. That's all legit.

>>17615058
What kind of clubs and where did you find them? Did you join on your own and not know anyone there beforehand?

>>17615068
I joined an anime club at my school. It's a bit cringy but they're pretty nice people, odds are there'll be some weebs who are sociable if that's what you're into.
I also went to a tabletop gaming club and joined a random group. They've been my best friends for the past four years.

>>17614855
I don’t care whether a woman is a virgin or not. It doesn’t make send to care about that unless your a christcuck

>>17614832
The greeks are unironically more essential to western civilization than Christianity. Go kys.

>>17610611
Nietzsche and Guenon.

>>17614980
Bro. Meds.

>>17615083
It might not matter to you because you’re a dude and sleeping with people doesn’t affect you to that extent. Women on the other hand, are never the same after they’ve been pumped and dumped a few times. Personality disorders begin growing off of them like tumors, and while they might get very small and vestigial if you and her build a really good relationship, you’ll still see them seep out a little bit of poison now and then. Women learn to be psychologically and emotionally abusive on the cock carousel. It trains women to always assume you’re disloyal so she’s ready to preemptively bolt for a better guy because she assumes relationships aren’t worth sacrificing to protect, because she‘s been trained to believe loyalty is naive and deserves to be punished by abuse and cheating. Every dick she takes increases the chance she’ll divorce you and take everything. There’s simply no way to have a non-toxic marriage with a woman whose not a virgin. If she’s not a virgin, she’s incapable of truly loving you and love is all that matters.

>>17614451
true.

>>17614947
sure everyone's a larper but you, KEK.
pathetic subhuman.

>>17611905
Tradition with a capital T

There's a Jewish tradition but it's the opposite of Tradition

>>17615309
As if you're not that paranoid sexist being you projecting non-virgin women to be? 'Redpill' philosophy is everything you imagine women doing to you, done back at them. If you think it's wrong for women to act like that than you should know it's wrong for you to do the same to them.

>>17615083
for me its cockless soda

>>17614855
>be religious
>get free wife
I can see why incels are into this now

>>17615087
in your dreams, pedo

Tradition does not mean just choosing a point in time and doing everything like they did, be it the 50's or ancient Greece.
It's an evolutionary process of learning from history, where behavior that benefits society as a whole is kept and behavior that weakens society, causes strife and vice is discarded.
For example, the nuclear family was a great civilizational advancement over other forms of romance/childbearing, so it is to be defended.

>>17615083
Then why did hundreds of pre-christian cultures consider it very important?

>>17611905

Well, Tradition in the sense that Evola employs the word in Revolt is not any pre-Enlightenment society, he's referring to some kind of historically inaccessible Golden Age that too be honest I'm not entirely sure that's literal only principle. The start of accessible history is already considered the Iron Age.

Anyways, in Metaphysics of Sex he addresses homosexuality and simply states that it has no "metaphysical value." Evola has a unique way of viewing these things. For example, he cites a work in Revolt by de Coulanges of Greco-Roman society that showed that the man was considered the father of the family on in a peculiar sense of having a quality to bear the ancestral cult's fire, as opposed to any physical aspect of manhood.

>>17615549
And just as an additional point that a man from another family or even ethnicity could be adopted precisely for this reason and still maintain the ancestral lineage.

>>17615309
There's a rather large gap between virginity and the "cock carousel", a woman that has had a small number of adult relationships is not yet ruined for life (just like a widow is not).
On the other hand everything else is based.

>>17615549
>Anyways, in Metaphysics of Sex he addresses homosexuality and simply states that it has no "metaphysical value."
Some of the dumbest shit I've ever read. Why can't you Nazis find someone that makes actual arguments instead of this schizo bs?

>>17615607
yea this is acceptable.

>>17615485
>"For example, the nuclear family was a great civilizational advancement over other forms of romance/childbearing, so it is to be defended."

>>17615622
inarguably true.
not even controversial position.
>>17615083
read on microchimerism, science denialist.

>>17614451
why are you crying here, this is a literature board

>>17615087
no.
Greeks, Jews, Romans put the basis.
Jesus made it whole and holy.
There is only one civilization on this planet.
The rest is barbarity.

>>17615620
I should've also tagged you for this basedjak here. >>17615622
>>17615627
>inarguably true.
>not even controversial position.
The extended family is superior in literally every way, though.

>>17615629
I'm not crying I'm just friendly reminding you liberal sockpupets of the obvious, that you are the status quo, not the open-minded freethinking rebels, and that you are so fucking fragile you cant tollerate boomers STANDING in front of a church saying nothing at all.

>>17615636
an extended family requires a nuclear family tho and it's basically a non-state wellfare program

>>17615658
>an extended family requires a nuclear family tho
You literally have this in reverse.
>and it's basically a non-state wellfare program
What's so bad about that? Not only are extended families far more practical and convenient, but they are also super fucking comfy.
>t. grew up with my extended family

>>17615636
>The extended family is superior in literally every way, though.
what we now consider "western values" all came out of the catholic church's rules against cousin marriage that were instituted in the middle ages. the nuclear family is literally what makes the west different than everywhere else.

>>17614451
Well the right demonizes anyone who does more so the left is naturally always going to take it further

>>17615622
Hypergamy and polygamy are recorded in our genes. About 40% of our male ancestors grew up to reproduce, against 80% of females. We have many more female ancestors than males because of that, despite reproduction needing exactly the same number of male and female. However, in the early days of civilization, a strong push for monogamy and marriage for life was introduced and it's easy to see why. The majority of men would not find a mate so would turn to vice and crime. The women would be helpless against them because the few highly desirable powerful strong smart men would not be there to defend them or their offspring because why would they?
They were the only ones benefitting from the arrangement, while other men and women lived in hate, anger and fear. These trends happened even before civilization but became catastrophic when everyone was forced to live next to each other and work together.
Such was life before monogamy and marriage became the rule.

>>17615689
Apparently you don't know what extended family actually means.

>>17615713
What was the purpose in making this post?

>>17615715
apparently you don't know anything about the development of western values

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/eaau5141

>>17615682
>What's so bad about that?
no, no, nothing
I'd rather have that than state wellfare for sure.

>>17615723
To illustrate my point of nuclear marriage being a civilizational advancement deserving of being defended, further adding to my wider point of tradition being an evolutionary strategy.

>>17615693
the "right" is still fucking liberals, of course they'd agree with their masters.

>>17615713
That's a lot of words for saying "I picked up this fringe ideology because I'm an incel"

>>17615753
I'm married and have kids.
I used to be a depressed atheist commie teenager, now I go to church with my family and love life.

>>17615753
that's very short synthetic way to express various books worth of baseless assumptions that would make an hare Krishna blush.

>>17615753
There's a lot of pseudo-intellectual teenage leftists on /lit/ these days, hopefully one day they'll use real arguments like adults instead of "have sex incel" or soijak posting.

>>17615732
I am referring to extended families in the pure sense, anon, not clans, which were by no means solely opposed by the Church.
>western values
These are trash btw.
>>17615734
I guess.
>>17615743
Well you are wrong, extended families were normal until very recently. Industrialisation and urbanisation are the real upsetting factors. The "nuclear family" was a necessary and inferior adaptation, it is what happens when you slash all support structures away from an atomised couple of city-dwelling labourers.
>further adding to my wider point of tradition being an evolutionary strategy.
Bro just quit the larp and declare yourself a progressive evopsych liberal, there's no need to drag the traditionalist label through the mud.

>>17615768
You can love life without worshipping a desert kike religion, should have read Nietzsche instead.

>>17610611
How can you be both obedient and a rebel?

>>17615831
based

>>17615797
the nuclear family is what happens when you civilization is prosperous enough for people to live independently. returning to extended family living arrangements signals a decline in living standard.

>>17615768
I don't believe you. Call it a cope, but I honestly don't.
And if you are being honest, I sincerely feel bad for your wife who has a husband who intellectually justifies subjugating her.

>>17615753
I've had sex (with women, without paying for it) and I agree.

>>17615801
I read a lot of Nietzsche in my teens, I mean really a lot, I was considering studying philosophy in uni, after I left my parent's home to marry my books went to a relative and he did graduate in philosophy (but unfortunately is none the wiser - seems to me he just learned to repeat what smarter people said, and smarter people do seem to say a lot of dumb stuff)
It made me feel superior to others but hate life
That was the time when that study came out that proposed humans are predisposed to be religious
At the time, I thought "well, most people are just dumb and can't be rational so they fall into religion's grasp"
But today I see it really means humans fall into religious practices even when they reject organized religion, like political activism, nihilism and hedonism
These things might replace religion in your heart, but they are incomplete religions that won't bring self-examination, hope or due respect to the things that make life really worthwile.
I'm not really a man of faith after more than a decade of atheism, but my experience is that any religion is better than no religion. Going to church and thinking about all the things I'm grateful for does wonders for mental health. Church is also a social community that you will not find anywhere else, and the men and women all seem to respect the ideals of marriage and raising children better than any other group.

>>17615887
Living standards is when your women overdose on morphine because they're depressed and can't cope with working a job and child rearing and the more your women overdose on morphine the higher your living standards.

>>17610847
Lol african four father's. Most niggers don't even have one.

>>17615903
Why not just read philosophy, discuss it in academia and find peers there?

>>17615936
because academia is the shithole of shitholes

>>17615912
cope

>>17615896
cope harder then
nothing stops someone who's married from knowing the basic facts about mithocondriak gene transfer, retard retardim.

>>17615896
I don't know what you mean with subjugating her, unless you consider all marriage to be a form of subjugating
I intellectually justify making the choice to be with her and nobody else, expecting her to do the same to me, and raising our children together in our own home, to be independent adults one day.
But I won't deny the biologic realities of men and women that made me think the choice we made is the best for our own happiness and that of our children.

>>17610678
Being “God’s cuck” is, if you know what God is, being beholden to truth and the essence of being. The alternative is being the cuck of the jews, Satan, and your own carnal depravity. I’m sure your life is great, faggot.

>>17615939
Okay, I think church and religious communities are shitholes.

>>17615753
Imagine thinking more pussy makes you think clearly.

>>17615936
Intellectual masturbation won't bring you hope or happiness

>>17615941
People are reading about early 20th century America.

>>17615825
By obeying the rules that you set for yourself instead of what the media tells you to. For example no leftist can be a rebel because all their actions are centrally piloted by a few journalists and "academics" telling them that the goal of life is to do porn, prostitute yourself for "empowerment", obey every whim of women, follow whatever is trendy on social media.
But anyway, being a rebel has no intrinsic value so that's not the reason to not be a leftist or set your own rule. The reason is long term benefits for you and your nation.

>>17612161
The thing that sucks about church is they are terrible at interpreting the bible and they remove any actual depth and meaning from the stories.

>>17614443
>how to afford
Simply take no thought for what you will wear or eat
Doesn’t God feed the birds and dress the fields with flowers? How much more are you worth to God than these?

>>17616081
Become Orthodox

>>17610611
Oh boy this thread annoyed some people. But really, I don't get why 'traditionalists' idolize the 1950s so much. It was consumerist as fuck. There's a reason all the Boomers revolted.

>>17612714
I'm literally wanted by like 6 different police departments in 3 states because of my activism but okay

>>17616258
>activism
Did you commit arson or something

>>17616215
>It was consumerist as fuck.
A side effect of the great depression no doubt, but the economic prosperity among many other things are a great aspect of the time.

>>17616264
Banner drops/ flyers/ speeches

https://www.bitchute.com/video/UITJtnTkBso/

Don't know why this was deleted but based

>>17616215
I think people just see the boomer revolt as the turning point they want to reverse.

>>17616215
Trads are retards but the 50s were clearly the high point of the century for the average American prole

>>17614850
I guess it depends what culture and time period you’re interested in studying. For ancient Greece, I really like Jacob Burckhardt. Like any older historian, he gets some things wrong but he really sets the baseline for a rigorous study of antiquity. Historians before him become very squeamish when they deal with the stranger parts of Greek culture, such as homosexuality and slavery. Plus, most of his books are available for free online.

>>17615903
i agree with what you are saying. it would be nice if people would start to understand religion as a social tech, it might make more sense to the modern mind.
i came to faith after giving up on the knowledge of the world. the veils are infinite. faith is post-reason

>>17615903
>>17617489
>unironically admitting to being a soulless LARPer
>"dude be religious even if it isn't true" Peterson-tier garbage
Bravo. You will always be an atheist bugman.

>>17617515
not them but it seems basically impossible to truly believe if you weren't raised in a religious household, all you can really do is take a fake it til you make it sort of route

>>17611136
>Metternich
Very interesting. Allright i will give him a look. Are we talking anout the Metternich during the Napoleon period? Finally some good find in those sad threads

>>17617515
was the second guy. my intention was to offer a framework of how to view it for people who don't understand the utility of religion. you can view these things from different angles.
i believe in Christ. what do you believe? does it grant unwarranted hostility as a virtue?
>>17617532
"i have come for those in despair"
you'll believe when the day comes for you to cry out

>>17617515
>>17617652
I'm the first quoted
Imagine a treadmill, and people laughing at you for wasting your time going nowhere. It does look ridiculous to be wasting time and effort running just end up on the same place.
Still, the body longs for exercise and health, even the most lazy couch potato can agree, and so does the mind.
The search for the truth is futile and we are all going to die without ever learning enough to be satisfied.
On top of that, academia devolved into soulless gatekeeping and repetition of dogma, science has become a cult and we all feel that we are living through a time of mental struggle, widespread depression and lack of hope in the future despite the early promises of a new era brought by the abandonment of religion and tradition.
Truth matters very little today compared to sanity, happiness and hope, and even when found, it's more likely to be hidden because it's not convenient.
Blind faith and blind search for "the truth" are just two sides of the same coin. Religion has always been about community and well being and self-help.
Rationality is overrated and the human thought is fundamentally flawed and irrational. As I said, regardless of accepting organized religion, you will reproduce cult-like behavior in your life and will have faith in irrational ideas for no good reason. Just, it won't bring you joy, happiness or help you through rough times, or help you make choices through the chaos.

>>17617947
well said

>>17616215
The 50s were indeed consumerist, people who think the 50s were "trad" just don't know what trad means.
>>17616258
ancom retard detected
>>17617532
"Fake it till you make it" is very different from "ackshually religion is an evopsych meme tool".

>>17610611
Imagine thinking killing infants in the belly of their mom is good and people who want to continue the beliefs of their grand parents is bad.
Clownworld for you brothers. I have never been this happy in my life since I purified my lifestyle. Do not waste time on those punks anons. Focus on what you have power over.

>>17613139
>Sodomy (not homosexuality, which is a 17th century invention) has always been broadly considered abominable.
and yet, males had no problem grinding each other or fondling each other. Reality is that all of sexuality was different.
>>17615713
Interestingly enough, we have no proof that the other 40% of males wanted to breed. How many men of prehistory chose homosexuality or celibacy, and rejected women? We don't know. It's not intuitive to think that homosexuality or celibacy was more pervasive in pre-history, but we can't really say. Assuming everyone was an incel obsessed with vaginas who only couldn't breed because they weren't strong enough assumes that the modern pussy whipped man was the status quo. I think that in the more spiritually golden age, before pre-history, much more people chose homosexuality and celibacy because it's holier than carnal reproductive sex.

>>17618266
The belief of grandparents was that woman getting pregnant out of wedlock is a disgusting thing and reason to shun her and the child when it's born, so in order to preserve the family honor people did to their daughters some truly terrible things, from throwing them out on the street and out of the family, forcing them to give birth away from prying eyes and putting the child up for adoption, putting the girl in care of special church-run organizations that abused them, and even forcing them to abortion done either by a doctor willing to risk his license or in a back alley with people of questionable expertise.
There's supposedly less abortions done in contemporary times than before, mostly thanks to contraception, but also because society developed at least in matter of respecting the fact accidents happen.

>>17618319
>we have no proof that the other 40% of males wanted to breed.
It's literally impossible for half the males of a species to not want to breed, it would go extinct. The whole basis of evolutionary biology indicates that everything the animal does is aimed ultimately at reproducing, because animals that don't behave that way don't pass on their genes. 50% of a species is completely absurd, even a persistent 1-2% strict homosexuality doesn't make any sense, which is one of the reasons homosexual behavior is a bit of a mystery.

>>17618216
>>17616215
You have this idea that it was much more consumerist precisely because the things from that era that are endlessly shown today are mostly advertisements. Think about how much of your conception was influenced by seeing advertisements from the era.
Most people were happier and more grateful than us with much less to show, and even the consumerism was focused on practical things: more confortable car that required less maintenance, home appliances that made life easier and were just being introduced, wonders of a period of plentiful production, economic growth, and hope for a bright future brought by science without leaving religion and tradition behind
Even the middle class had so much less material possessions than today's poor.
Maybe it's the contrast with the drab life on socialist countries that were considered by academia to be on par with western liberal countries that gives the idea.

>>17618381
>evolutionary biology
I don't believe in anglo science so appealing to it doesn't do anything for me.

>>17618438
They actually teach it everywhere in the developed world and it wasn't entirely invented by Anglos

>>17618319
The proof we have is that as soon as women became avaliable to them these holy homosexuals immediately turned straight

>>17618319
>and yet, males had no problem grinding each other or fondling each other. Reality is that all of sexuality was different.
>Source: my ass
>>17618399
Anon, the entire 1945-1973 period is characterised by what we call "the second industrial revolution", a spike in wealth and a spike in consumer spending. This is the period when cars start to become really popular, when products like radio, TV, fridges, etc. really pierce the mainstream. The ideas of technological progressivism and economic power are the greatest myths of that time period. There is nothing trad about that, it's thoroughly, extremely bourgeois. That life was more comfortable and prosperous then is an entirely different question - that much is true both in the capitalist countries and the former Soviet Bloc. This does not make that era "trad" in any way.

>>17610611
Basically read every stuff about myths, mythology from every religion known then you're ready to go

>>17618460
No, we have proof that (((society))) had to pass a bunch of laws against sodomy since males could not keep their penises out of other males pants. Heterosexuality is man-made by the demiurge.

>>17618468
Yes, that is my idea too. I don't claim the era was trad, but the people were certainly more trad than today. The consumerism was brought by an abundance of both production and funds, it was not the soulless hobby that it is today but a way of making life easier. You call it consumerism because things were being bought and sold, not because people dedicated their lifes to buying more and more useless junk like today.

>>17618514
Those laws would be unsustainable if 50% of the male population really were sodomites in hiding
On the other hand, in some muslim countries that approve of polygamy and arranged marriages, unmarried men turn to sodomy with young boys because it's so hard to have sex with women.

>>17618647
>unmarried men turn to sodomy with young boys because it's so hard to have sex with women.
cope. they do it because they like it. Same like the Greeks did. In those muslim countries, pederasy is common because they are more traditional societies not so pozzed by modernism as the rest of the world. Homosexuality was WIDESPREAD in Asia for most of it's history.

>>17618514

What's up with liberalism that it has to demeane any other philosophy it encounters? It's incredibly insecure

>>17618664
Yikes. I thought Thai was supposed to be the smart board here.

>>17618703
This* phone posting

>>17618712
>phone posters lecturing people on intelligence
do they really?

>>17618360
Action in real life have consequences.
There is no such things has accidents with having a child.
>Oh I happened to ejaculate in her womb by accident; I just fell on her.
Sex has ramifications and it is a serious deed. If you guys prefer sins of the flesh before temperance well you go then and "abort" your child in the making for it is your signature.

Little story.
The ex of my best friend aborted their boy a while back and it completely destroyed him and now he still talks to me about it and cries. She was pregnant and without consulting him she went and had an abortion. He was broken into pieces and to top it up she then told him she would never want to have a child with him. It's not that he is an incel; he is 6'1 blond with blue eye pretty attractive and socially apt nothing to be ashame of. Before Christmas he told me about a dream he had where he saw his little boy run around the house and they were solving puzzles and he went back into this depress state and did drugs and alcool. He regularly consults a psychologist.
If this little action is benign well it took a massive toll on him and probably many more. All of this is because of uncontrolled desire for the corrupted flesh.
You guys need to understand that there is sacredness in life and making a baby is one of them. Do not whine about how the punishment was terrible back then when we are not animals with no self-control, we can control ourself and respect an higher set of value that will elevate our soul, spirit and our society towards God.
Respect the Word of God!

>>17618717
Ouch you fell for the bait and revealed yourself even more. You even posted a frog. I couldn't have asked for a better example, bravo

>>17618664
why desire to live in a place where this is practiced?
"hey young lad can i put my penis in between your thighs *chuckle*, now get the oil out! time to ejaculate into your accumulating fecal matter"
sounds fucking lit bro

>>17618724
amen

>>17618601
>Yes, that is my idea too. I don't claim the era was trad, but the people were certainly more trad than today.
I suppose comparatively there would be more residue of traditional morality and culture, although that disintegrates very quickly and is on the way out by the 1960s.
>The consumerism was brought by an abundance of both production and funds, it was not the soulless hobby that it is today but a way of making life easier. You call it consumerism because things were being bought and sold, not because people dedicated their lifes to buying more and more useless junk like today.
Anon that's exactly what shit like TVs are. The Western governments passionately encouraged credit spending and purchases in order to drive up economic growth. You were always supposed to be buying stuff, just because a lot of those things were comparatively more useful than the things people consoom today doesn't make it better in principle.

>>17618664
Whatever helps you cope with your depraved desires of penetrating little boys up their asses.
Just never be in close proximity of children as long as you live.

>>17618782
You can read about the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Basically, capitalism and buying things is not so bad, as long as you have strong morality and a focus on things that matter you will remain free, and so will your community. After all, all people want things that make life more convenient, confortable and entertaining, and all societies have their means of working and acquiring things. Only when morality and religion are swept away people become slaves to consumerism, like an incomplete substitute religion that brings no happiness or hope.

>>17618854
The purpose of consumerism is to sweep away religion and morality, though.

>>17619148

Religion, morality and consumerism are all human nature. There's no purpose, at least not one designed by humans, to consumerism. Just so happens we enjoy things that make life easier and give us some entertainment. Unless you are equating acquiring things with becoming a slave to acquiring more things and endlessly consuming entertainment.

>>17619219
>Religion, morality and consumerism are all human nature.
If consumerism is human nature then there were no humans alive prior to like the 1920s.
>There's no purpose, at least not one designed by humans, to consumerism.
It's a deliberate economic strategy, so you are wrong.
>Just so happens we enjoy things that make life easier and give us some entertainment. Unless you are equating acquiring things with becoming a slave to acquiring more things and endlessly consuming entertainment.
This is exactly how it tends to go for a significant number of people.

>>17619290
You think there was nothing in the world people wanted more of before 1920? That everyone was happy with what they had? That even noblemen and royalty wouldn't envy richer, more powerful noblemen and royalty? What was the purpose of the conquistadores? Or the roman conquests? Or the earlier homo sapiens that would cross seas, mountains and deserts all around the world?

>>17610678
>>17612142
when your argument aligns with a broken tranny's

>>17610611
Yes, join a magic order .

>>17618761
and yet you're the type who brags about their desire to eat ass and slurp vagina fluids.

>>17619373
>You think there was nothing in the world people wanted more of before 1920?
Wanting more things isn't consumerism.
>That everyone was happy with what they had? That even noblemen and royalty wouldn't envy richer, more powerful noblemen and royalty? What was the purpose of the conquistadores? Or the roman conquests? Or the earlier homo sapiens that would cross seas, mountains and deserts all around the world?
You are projecting contemporary norms and standards into the past. This is inaccurate and it becomes more inaccurate the further back you go. The idea that the Romans established the empire in order to institute consumerism is downright surreal. Consumerism presupposes mass production, cheap consumer goods, the lending of financial credit and modern transport systems.

>>17614469
Ive been wary of theosophy since before I read evola or guenon.
Blavatsky mishmashes shit together, no respect for their cultural origins, take what she wants and discards what doesnt fit in. Not to mention all the cringe newage lhp stuff has stemmed from theosophy.
Thats all its had to offer to the occult community. Larpers.

>>17619290
>If consumerism is human nature then there were no humans alive prior to like the 1920s.
Explain the industrial revolution and all the gold rushes.

>>17619440
No I'm not.
Thief believes everybody steals.
Reprobate mind.

>>17619475
The industrial revolution is about production, not consumption. The massive expansion in consumption comes significantly later. The gold rushes are completely unrelated to consumerism.

>>17619460
And you are also projecting contemporary norms and standards into the past, just a more recent past (the 50's)
Human nature is to want more and never be satisfied. Romans wanted more slaves and fertile lands so they went and produced more through conquest.
If wanting more things is not consumerism, neither is buying domestic appliances to make one's life easier, and it certainly is not incompatible with religion and morality. It only becomes a problem when people become zombified and immoral.

>>17619519
>The industrial revolution is about production, not consumption
If only you could see supply and demand go hand in hand
The only two rational reasons to invest in increased production are increased consumption, or charity. And I don't think industrial barons were distributing their stuff for free. It was just on a smaller scale than today. There was never a clean separation before/after consumerism. Humanity has always searched for more and strived to produce more and wanted to have more of everything. It has just become more efficient.

>>17619600
>Human nature is to want more and never be satisfied.
This is a complete myth. The idea that all of human history is just Steve stealing Carl's land because he wanted 601 acres instead of 600 is the biggest and most absurd crock of shit I have ever heard of. A small group of people who desired more land have driven territorial conquests, yes, but many more wars are waged out of loss-aversion than gain-acquisition. Hell, you can easily argue that the Spanish established colonies not to "Get bigger", but out of the necessity of building a power base to maintain domestic stability, and out of this they obtained wealth.

Romans hardly "produced more slaves through conquest" because they just wanted more. Roman elites were violent and competed aggressively. Most conquests served not to enrich the empire but out of the necessity for expansion to prevent collapse (in the later periods), or to build a power base with which one could protect himself (in the case of Caesar).

>>17610611
Fucking lmao does this dipshit have commodus as his avi? That might be the funniest thing I've seen all month

>>17619642
Not only conquest, but also commerce. Imagine how many portuguese died in the sea so that a few ships could bring spices to Europe so rich people would eat spiced food. Remember how the english became rich selling tea. How much was invested in better, faster ships so that one company could have bragging rights to sell the latest crop of tea earlier than the others (an effective form of advertising). How slavery was used to produce not essential, lifesaving goods in times of plague and famine, but sugar and cotton. How the french nobility would fall for fads copying whatever the new king would do.

>>17619701
These have to do much more with symbols of status and power than they have to do with a drive to consume. Obviously food is a cheap shot because it's an easy source of dopamine, so "I want my food to taste good and not be unseasoned bread" will ALWAYS hearken of consumerism. The desire for power and stability is much stronger than the desire for "More". Historically, far more HASN'T happened because someone thought "I am afraid of losing something" than has happened because someone thought "I want something".

>>17619846
I don't get it. Your clean break before/after 1920. Your refusal to see earlier examples of the very same behaviors, only on a smaller scale. Maybe your definition of consumerism is "whatever I say it is". If greed was just an elitist fear of losing power, why was it so effective on the common man? I'm not american, I personally know old people that had no TV or radio in their youth, do you think they had no concept of acquiring beautiful, useless things to display and look at in their miserable lives? or just better tools to make their life easier? Don't you think even little children become fascinated with beautiful, useless things and want to have them, even when it's not advertised? Mass production just made their desires easier to achieve but it's just human nature and has always been. I played with tin cans and boxes of matches as a kid and those were my treasures, and there was never enough. You can also say that consumerism is also a fear of losing what one already have, even useless collections of funko pops become treasures some people cherish and become addicted to collect, and not buying more, leaving one's collection stale after investing so much, becomes as undesirable as losing it all.

>>17611232
Adopt an African kid. Every congregation I attended had a few people who had done that.