/lit/ - Literature

>>18230245

It's pretty good, if you already something of mythology and pre-modern philosophy.

ReeD eBoLa.

>>18230245
How often are you going to make this thread? Yes, it's worth reading if you're interested in the subjects he writes about. No, it's not if you're not.

>>18230285
wasn't me, haven't been here in a year
i also just found out about this book 15 minutes ago

>>18230342
How did you find out about it?

>>18230358
i got an ad for a used copy of it and then read the description
I'm not really right leaning or conversative, but I'm really interested in Traditionalism and also share the believe that the modern world is declining
if this book is just a 400 page Anti-Race mixing rant though, I'm not that interested

>>18230414
If you're interested in Traditionalism then yes read this book. It's one of his least political books. He was staunchly anti-egalitarian and held some opinions that would be called politically incorrect nowadays but it's definitely not
>a 400 page Anti-Race mixing rant

>>18230275
yes, and?

>>18230414
If you can get over the slight cringe, this series is a decent introduction / reading companion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD5B8P2wUbA

>>18230422
>held some opinions that would be called politically incorrect
yeah don't really mind that

thanks for your help anon, I appreciate it!

>>18230414
Evola is retarded. Anything in his writings that has any substance whatsoever was pretty much copy pasted from actual perennialist thinkers like Guenon and Coomaraswamy. You can tell when he's writing about an idea endemic to himself because it's just historical and philsophical fanfiction without much of any defense.
>400 page Anti-Race mixing rant
That unironically would have made it better than what it is.

>>18230450
thanks anon, I'll check it out

>>18230436
and stop being a contrarian
you wouldnt care for ebola as much if you just read the christian canon

>>18230456
>>18230463
No worries, I hope you get something out of it

>>18230245
complete tarzan philosophy

>>18230245
I hate it, cheap propaganda leads people to conan mentality.

>>18230544
>>18230555
>tarzan philosophy
>conan mentality
Did you even read the book?

>>18230414
Traditionalism doesnt mean what you think it might mean. Its more like perennialism than "return to monke".

>>18230564
Obviously they havent.

>>18230461
Kek
I admit I can't get into Evola, it just feels like I am wasting my time. It's not bad, but it lacks the metaphysical penetration that resolve all the illusions and all attachments like Guénon.
Not saying he doesn't have any merits though

>>18230596
I guess that's where the priest vs warrior meme comes from, Guenon advocated ascetic retreat, Evola action. Both appeal to different types of people, both are excellent in their own right.

>>18230612
Yes, that's just unfortunate Evola had to be untraditional in regards to the relation of the two castes.

>>18230584
yeah, I hoped so, else I'd read a book about Primitivism

>>18230634
Fuck off, faggot.

>>18230461
>>18230596
Guenon is nothing but a forced meme that dumb motherfuckers like you two won’t let die

>>18230663
No Guenon is fine, he was Evola's biggest influence. People who say one or the other is completely wrong are retarded.

>>18230663
not either of them but Guenon is definitely not a forced meme. it only appears so here because the same 3 autists devotedly made 3 guenon threads a day for 2 years

>>18230646
Well that's his main problem. I'm not saying I don't like Evola.
>>18230663
Everyone know Guenon no matter the milieu and country, but he is very often not quoted and kept in the shadow, as he wanted to be.
So I'm not one who would force him, as I know it would be opposed to his way to remain known only to those who can grasp him.
I enjoy the memes people make with him though.

>>18230750
How was he untraditional?
>He placed warriors above priests
No, he didn't.

>>18230584
dumbass

>>18230770
He did
And action at the same level as knowledge/contemplation

>>18230895
No, he didn't. You shouldn't believe the memes but read him for youself. He clearly states that the hierarchy goes divine emperor -> priests -> warriors -> merchants. However, he does say that warriors are not directly beholden to the priests but to the divine emperor, and that warriors doing the bidding of the priests solely is already a sign of degeneration.

>>18230915
>bidding of the priests
What does this expression mean ?

>>18230939
The warrior caste being the direct lackeys of the priest caste is already a sign of degeneration. They answer to the emperor, although in metaphysical hierarchy the priest caste stands above the warrior caste.

>>18230770
Evola attempts to prove through most of his books that the solar principle is higher than the lunar principle. Not that one path is better than the other.

>>18230770
>>18230975
Nvm I just realized talking about warriors, not royalty.

>>18230915
Putting the emperor above is a mistake. From the point of view of action of course the emperor is above, since the emperor reign.
But from the spiritual point of view the spiritual reign, and influence drastically the actions and all the cosmos. Influence even more the material, social and political than the opposite.
Actions is bellow and the priest are thus, according to the spiritual hierarchy, above even the emperor, that was a warrior and completely in action.

>>18230968
Was he talking about something specific ?
I would personally say the clergy being the direct lackeys of the emperor (and thus of all the government around him) is a sign of degeneration. Like for Charlemagne and the investiture controversy, but Evola wants his holy roman emperor for nationalistic reasons. Of course the pope had inflated ego, I'm not a papist.

>>18231003
No you misunderstand, according to Evola the true emperor is more like the Pharaoh who was both temporal emperor and spiritual leader/"pope" at the same time. The division beyond that, to split those functions, that is degeneration in itself.

>>18231068
Wasn't he talking about the "holy roman emperor" ?

>>18231080
No, if you refer to his Ghibbeline/Guelph issue then his stance is he would have backed the emperor since he embodied the Traditional spirit to a higher degree than the pope/church did, which was already very corrupt and degenerate by then. But that's all contingency, in his metaphysical view, the true divine emperor should be both temporal and spiritual authority in one. That was one of his issues with christianity, the splitting of that function.

>>18230245
The first half of the book is really good if you want to start a cult.

>>18231096
Where does he talks the most about that, and present his criticism of christianity ?

Even in the best case, the emperor, having to deal with the temporal affairs, is bellow the purely sacerdotal ones.
In the emperor there is the marriage between the Sky and Earth, like with the chinese emperor, but that does mean he has a terrestrial part in him. He is the head of the political order. The purely spiritual traditions are what govern, not the personal in which the spiritual and political unite.

The primordial unity is in the spiritual, not in a political system. Anyway the fact he says the emperor is spiritual and thus the spiritual is above doesn't resolve the problem, it's just a way to recreate it.

>>18231137
>Where does he talks the most about that, and present his criticism of christianity ?
Not that anon but Evola talks about Christianity and the solar/lunar split in Mystery of the Grail.

>>18231166
Thanks
Who is the sun for him ?

>>18231137
No, you misunderstand. Before the Silver Age, there was no split between the sacerdotal and temporal, they were unified. I guess the problem is the word emperor which you see as something completely profane due to how it came to be used in later times. Use pharaoh if you will, or divine leader. Doesn't matter. The split between a head of temporal affairs and a head of spiritual affairs is the first major fall. The divine emperor / pharaoh was able to handle temporal affairs precisely because he was the embodiment of the spiritual authority on earth. He presided over both.
Otherwise your criticism counts just the same for the Pope.
>Where does he talks the most about that, and present his criticism of christianity ?
Revolt Against the Modern World of course. It's his main work.

>>18231176
yes, my criticism counts for the pope. I think he participated to the confusion.
So for Evola this scheme doesn't apply to the iron age ? And thus for the iron age the emperor is bellow ?

>>18231175
He also talks about the Christianity thing at the end of Revolt Against the Modern World IIRC.

>>18231222
Fair enough.
>So for Evola this scheme doesn't apply to the iron age ? And thus for the iron age the emperor is bellow ?
Well it depends, in theory in the Kali Yuga the emperor as representative of the warrior caste is below the spiritual authority. However Evola's case is that with the advent of Christianity, they further split something that should not have been split (render unto God / Ceasar, you know). And in the middle ages with the Holy Roman Empire, although technically, in theory, the spiritual is above the temporal, Evola makes the case that the emperor did more to uphold Tradition than did the pope.
I suggest just reading Revolt (and Mystery of the Grail like the other anon said, I think that's his best book) for yourself if you haven't. It's a really good book and he explains it better than I can.

>>18231080
The other guy pretty much covered it, but to be specific Evola uses the term Pontifex more than emperor. The reason he is above the priests is because he becomes the axis mundi and thus the bridge that links the temporal order with the divine.
It is when this sacred connection between the world of being and becoming is broke that things begin to degenerate as the world has only itself to look toward.

Now this next part is where it is fair to say that Evola did depart somewhat from the traditionalist school.
During these ages of degeneration and disconnect there are still operational spiritual orders but they are fundamentally lunar. Evola thought it was still possible to access the solar principle, but that many of the Traditions that would have been viable under the reign of the pontifex no longer presented such an opportunity, even if their texts and doctrines made references to such a thing these were written under a different age with different conditions and that increasingly initiatic lineages were disintegrating.

Now, because of the situation outlined above, essentially the Kali Yuga, Evola made the judgement that in the Dark Age (Something we are only at the very very beginning of and is set to last hundreds of thousands of years) that the spirituality of Action would remain viable for longer because it isn't strictly beholden to initiatic chains. This is where the idea of Heroic, or Self-Initiation comes in to play.
First it has to be said that what is meant by Self-Initiation isn't the same as doing a ritual and granting yourself a title. For Evola, just like Guenon, Initiation always comes from above not from below.
Guenon also mentions that there is no reason that the divine can't, at any time, descend on to a man at any time in any age, as this is fully within its power however he never highlighted this point much, I think out of fear of misinterpretation giving carte blanche to all manner of counter-initiatory elements.

For Evola a Self-Initiation is the same as a Heroic-Initiation. It is something mythic, seen in the likes of Greek Epic where in the heat of battle divinity descends onto the shoulders of mighty heroes. Because of its very nature there is no orthodox blueprint on how to achieve this. It is a quest, elitist and rare, something Evola sought for most of his life.

>>18231261
Would the concept of symphonia be unadvisable according to Evola (exemplified by the Aquila- joint rule of the church and state)?

And is this self-initiation necessarily a combative act, or can "divinity descend upon one" in a different, although equally active context (e.g., argument, composition of a work, professing, preaching, any other heroic/lofty work).

Not asking from the position of an Evola-reader

>>18231256
Yeah, seems it needs some clarification. For me it all seems like a way for Evola to justify the emperor. Even though I'm not taking the side of the pope, just that there were confusion from both.

>>18231261
Evola didn't get initiated ?

Guenon talks about the self initiation and says it's so rare that one should not hope to have it. Even if it is theorically very exceptionnaly possible. Also traditional text like the vedas mention what Guenon describe, that this initiation can lead to an uncomplete realization and to a bit of mysticism because the one that had that was a bit alone.

>>18231319
>For me it all seems like a way for Evola to justify the emperor.
In the iron age sense? Sure, but I think he makes a convincing case. As for the metaphysical theory of the golden age, I'm fairly certain Guenon didn't disagree on that part.
>Even though I'm not taking the side of the pope, just that there were confusion from both.
Yes of course, Evola doesn't deny that. His nuance is just slightly different than Guenon's on that regard. You shouldn't take either's word as gospel by the way, although I think both were very bright minds.

>>18230422
Political correctness is a psy-op and a byproduct of communist thinking.
Its like oh why are white people so successful? because we spent thousands of years suffering in the most brutal conflicts imaginable while simultaneously developing the best technology and systems of philsophy so such a degree that we expanded into and conquered two foreign continents that everyone and their mother wanted to move to. No one is trying to move to China or India.

The reason simply is that the spirit and DNA of European people is ingrained within them that the degenerate communists and extreme leftists have labeled as privledge because they are likely degenerates born of race mixing or of jewish ancestry to such a degree that they have no unifying spirit beyond their own envy and wretchedness that they have to create an idealogy that cuts everyone off at the knees so we can all be equally wretched with them.

The entire crux of political correctness and social justice movements are born of hatred and envy for those who maintained their strength through discipline and wisdom.

Its essentially like a bunch of Mutt dogs creating a philsophy saying that pure breds have an advantage in racing and tracking and hunting so we need to fuck with them psychologically and physically so we can compete too instead of being creative and making our own niche or adopting spiritual principles and accpeting our limitations we need everyone as fucked up as possible so no one can be strong by virtue of their birth.

It takes several horrendous steps forward in that leftism then needs to create degenerate artificial power systems that come across like frankenstein's monster in their perversion of traditional systems without ever understanding their purpose.

This is why we have a world where trannies are competing with women in sports. its the ultimate conclusion of leftist philosophy born into clown world.

I think Evola would probably turn into a school shooter or Ted K if he saw the world of today and how bad things have gotten.

>>18231398
So... what did you think of Revolt Against the Modern World?

>>18230555
>leads people to conan mentality
Good. That’s what he’s trying to promote.

>>18231345
>You shouldn't take either's word as gospel by the way
Yes, Guenon himself said he could make mistake.

Yes Guénon agree in a sense, but the Brahmin are into contemplation mostly, the kshatriya into action and the problem of Evola is that he doesn't want to accept the hierarchy Guenon recalls of action and contemplation.
So if there was an pontifex in the first age it was first a spiritual leader, that means that contemplation is the principle of action and not the opposite and that if there is a unity, it's because of the resorption of action.
So the Brahmins made the kshatriya, not the other way around

>>18231289
>>18231289
>Would the concept of symphonia be unadvisable according to Evola
A degeneration, but preferable to the present I suppose.

>And is this self-initiation necessarily a combative act, or can "divinity descend upon one" in a different, although equally active context (e.g., argument, composition of a work, professing, preaching, any other heroic/lofty work).

I can't really say as this is reaching the limits of my knowledge so take what I say next with a grain of salt because it contains some speculation on my part. Like I said there is no Blueprint for becoming Self-Initiated but one can't forget what is meant by Action. Action isn't just doing stuff. Action is, in some ways, ritual. Ritual in that it transforms action (little a) into an offering to something higher.
Ajuna on the battlefield deciding to fulfil his role as a warrior, not because he desires to fight, or kill his cousins, but because he came to realize that it was his ordained moment to fulfil his cosmic duty. "If we are victorious we win the earth, if we die heaven is our prize". Action also extended to things like agriculture, crafts, daily hygiene, meal preparation but these things are not necessarily Heroic. Evola wandered the streets of the city as bombs dropped around him, it left him paralyzed.

When Guenon talks about Self-Initiation his focus is less on the Heroic, and Sponatanous-Initation might be a better term. And like >>18231319 mentioned he considered it so rare as to be detrimental to aspire toward it. I think for Guenon it was something that resulted in either Prophets and new instantiations of Tradition, or result in beings who were almost there but not quite.

The concept of Pratyekabuddha, or Silent Buddha, could be useful here when considering the idea of an 'almost there" being, rather than a prophet. A Pratyekabuddha is a being who, without texts or guidance, becomes enlightened. But because of the idiosyncratic nature of their attainment they have no teachings, no doctrine, no legacy.

>>18231434
>the problem of Evola is that he doesn't want to accept the hierarchy Guenon recalls of action and contemplation.
He does though, but he also disagreed on some nuances. Now you just accepted that Guenon could be wrong, so really until you've read Evola, you can't claim Evola to be in the wrong here.
>So if there was an pontifex in the first age it was first a spiritual leader, that means that contemplation is the principle of action and not the opposite and that if there is a unity, it's because of the resorption of action.
No, like I said before, he personified both contemplation and action. In the Golden age, they were one and the same.
>So the Brahmins made the kshatriya, not the other way around
No, the divine emperor/Pontifex made both. Evola never claimed that the kshatriya "made" the brahmins. I've tried explaining it to you but honestly just read Evola and see for yourself.

>>18231459
>until you've read Evola, you can't claim Evola to be in the wrong here
By metaphysical induction.

In the golden age people didn't need to act and govern.
Action itself is a necessity because of decline. And indeed it seems Evola, from what I have read, didn't want to accept the primauty of contemplation.

Anyway I am getting a bit sleepy. Thanks anon for the good talk !

>>18231414
It was very dense and full of interesting words and topics I had never heard of before like Ghibelline. I tabbed a lot of pages.

I think a problem Evola never counted on was that the technology of the modern age could become an end in itself.

I Perhaps need to reread the book because a lot of it did not stick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_7A3AOoSgU&ab_channel=ACURRENTCONSPIRACYACC

I would say personally im a beginner in tradition and my own pursuit of it is largely a rebellion against the Leftist group think of Canada. Its like I tried complying with their political idealogy and got burned by it because its fundamentally wrong.

Basically if you practice modern day leftism is psychologically scars you. Ie its okay for men to by slim and feminine, athiesm and materialism is the way the world works.

Basically I was so decieved by the system I had no idea that communism was creeping into the west, I was redpilled on some issues but it seems like the redpill is a total philosphy, you dont get to go halfway or pick and choose.

Its basically a form of Total War but in the practice spiritual development against the modern leftist world and a total rejection of all of its philosophies even if they sound nice.

The thing is that Evola was prescient in his work that he expected things to get worse after he died and was very pessimisstic. I'm not sure if traditionalism is totally practical or practicable anymore unless you want to be like Yukio Mishima and make a stand.

Although I havent touched Geunon's work I agree with Evola in that the warriors should rule because the way I interpret it is that those who influence a society should be born of knowledge and warfare in all things not afraid to take the front put your name on things and take action.
I think those of a purely priestly/scholarly inclination are prone to inaction and laziness and are content to see the world fall around them or resort to indirect feminine means of control/direction.
Its likely that a "traditional priest class" will whore themselves out to power and whatever is socially relevant in order to retain their positins while the warriors will fight to the death to prevent degeneration and would never tolerate modern left wing ideas.

>>18231489
>words and topics I had never heard of before like Ghibelline
...why don't you start with something less niche than evola? like damn even a high school history course maybe

>>18231489
look man philosophical mumbo jumbo honestly isn't what you're looking for, you're not gonna get anything out of it for what you seem to want. look into more practical stuff instead, read about political history and development of ideology. youre canadian so maybe you'd benefit from a lot of stuff written about north america like tocqueville or albion's seed.

>>18231398
You sound really retarded. Your problem is the fact you have resentment towards the reality that ultimately you have failed to persuade people to uphold your dubious cultural objectives, and all you can do is make psuedo-scientific, conspiratorial arguments as why people have failed to heed these objectives, and you lack the intelligence to create new values to replace the ones disappearing before your eyes.
You claim to be different than leftists, but practically, you are no different - you're just on the losing end of the hegemonic shift envious losing such power to hold such dominance.
You also have a poor understanding of Evola, a very poor one, because Evola was not man of politics. Evola was against violence, and he was especially against the naive, childish violent mannerisms of idealists such as Kaczynski. What Evola calls for specifically, is for the growth of an aristocratic, "traditional" soul - one that is born out of a personal self knowledge beyond the subversive of the vanities this world along inner development. The person that adopts Evola's ethos is one that is willing to lead, upholding the banner of tradition, by example, so that others may follow. Intellectuals like Evola are out of your league. You are brain-dead pol/tard/ that doesn't belong here, and shouldn't post until you have the ability to critically think and articulate your beliefs as a /lit/izen.

>>18230275
>modern = new = bad
>tradition = old = good
yes

>>18230245
I imagine by the content of your post that you already know what it's about and you're just looking to get a reaction. Shit thread

>>18231631
>because Evola was not man of politics.
Someone tell him

>>18231398
tldr but based

>>18230245

It's a lot better than Mein Kampf as far as right wing philosophy is concerned.

Mein Kampf is rambling really.

>>18236089

Here's an audiobook kinda version...

https://archive.org/details/julius-evola-audiobook-revolt-against-the-modern-world-part-1-r-8-gtp-6-er-8-i

Can anyone explain what Evola meant when he refers to the "superworld" or the "world of tradition." In the metaphysical view of the perennialists, there is the manifested, the unmanifested, and all of their potentials. Of course, there are also ideas such as the principle of manifestation but that is of a secondary concern of viewing this metaphysical scheme in its active aspect. To me, Evola doesn't ever really seem to define what he means by the "superworld" or the "world of tradition." It sometimes just seems to be akin to the Platonic idea of the world of forms/ideas but not as fleshed out and defined.

>>18236089
They're not comparable at all.

>>18236346
Watch this >>18230450
It means the metaphysical world, the world beyond the material world. Comparable to Plato yes.

>>18230245
take LSD and put your cock up your ass for the full Evola experience

>>18237443
I can't get it out

>>18230245
It's written by a shitalian. What do you think, anon?

>>18230275
Someone spent waaaay too much time making this

>>18230245
Pirated it out of curiosity, read the first thee pages and thought to myself "this sounds like one of the guys that film themselves rambling about feminism in their pickup truck", and obviously haven't picked it up since.

>>18230245
>just random right wing rambling
this is exactly what this book is - don't waste your time.

>>18239917
gave me exactly the same vibe, plus latent schizophrenia

>>18239922
You haven't read it
>>18239917
>>18239929
You were filtered hard

This guy, who is as far from a right winger as you could imagine, recommends Revolt as one of the best books on metaphysics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFoiIQQIFAE
(10:30)

>>18239933
>nooooOOooooOooooOOOooooo you can't dislike muh favorite youtuber!
>he's baaaaaaassseeeed! you don't understand!
>everyone who dislikes him just needs to read moar, It's not because they rationally disagree with him!
you guys react like this every time this piece of garbage gets critique, it's pathetic.

>>18239933
If "not retarded enough to like the book" is a filter, then by all means, yes I was

>>18239944
Is that fat ape meant to change my opinion on anything?

>>18239946
You seem like a stable person.
You can disagree with the book but saying you read 3 pages and threw it away because you didn't understand it is not actual critique, retard. Saying it's right wing rambling when it's really not is proof you haven't read it.
>>18239951
You're free to dislike it, but it's clear you didn't understand it.

>>18236346
>It sometimes just seems to be akin to the Platonic idea of the world of forms/ideas but not as fleshed out and defined.
He is beginning to understand.

>>18239952
Depends on what your opinion is. If it's that the book is right wing rambling then yes.

>>18239960
Oh I did understand his point. The typical alt right misreading of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Darwin, as well as the self righteous "oh I am just too smart and brave for academia"-bullshit. No reason to read any further once you come to this conclusion.

>>18240010
Thanks for proving you didn't understand it nor actually read it lmao
There's some people like Frater who disagree with Evola but at least they can make coherent arguments as to why.

>>18240023
Not sure why you're arguing with them, I generally assume they're bots of some kind. They appear in every related thread like clockwork saying pretty much the same things without any substance.

>>18240023
>>18240083
Samefag

>>18239946
Evola is dead he isn't a youtuber. Why are wojack posters so retarded?

>>18239946
Also rationality is for midwits

>>18240010
Please don't ever post again.

>>18240010
>typical alt right misreading of Nietzsche
Can you tell me how to correctly interpret these passages of Nietzsche, please?

I was given a pointer in the right direction by the question as to what
the terms for ‘good’, as used in different languages, mean from the etymological point of view: then I found that they all led me back to the same conceptual transformation, – that everywhere, ‘noble’, ‘aristocratic’ in social
terms9 is the basic concept from which, necessarily, ‘good’ in the sense of
‘spiritually noble’, ‘aristocratic’, of ‘spiritually highminded’, ‘spiritually
privileged’ developed: a development that always runs parallel with that
other one which ultimately transfers ‘common’, ‘plebeian’, ‘low’ into the
concept ‘bad’

the common man could be characterized as the dark-skinned and especially the dark-haired man (‘hic
niger est –’),17 as the pre-Aryan occupant of Italian soil who could most
easily be distinguished from the blond race which had become dominant,
namely the Aryan conquering race, by its colour; at any rate, I have found
exactly the same with Gaelic peoples, – fin (for example in Fin-gal), the
word designating the aristocracy and finally the good, noble, pure, was
originally a blond person in contrast to the dark-skinned, dark-haired
native inhabitants. By the way, the Celts were a completely blond race; it
is wrong to connect those traces of an essentially dark-haired population,
which can be seen on carefully prepared ethnological maps in Germany,
1This word seems originally to have meant ‘genuine, real’, it later becomes one of the most
commonly used words for ‘noble’. 12 (Greek) ‘weak, ugly, cowardly, worthless’. 13 (Greek) ‘cowardly (and thus despicable)’. 14 (Greek) ‘capable, useful, good’. 15 ‘bad, evil’. 16 (Greek) ‘dark, black’. 17 ‘That man is a dangerous character’, literally ‘He is black’ (Horace, Satires I. 85).
with any Celtic descent and mixing of blood in such a connection, as
Virchow does: it is more a case of the pre-Aryan population of Germany
emerging at these points. (The same holds good for virtually the whole of
Europe: to all intents and purposes the subject race has ended up by
regaining the upper hand in skin colour, shortness of forehead and
perhaps even in intellectual and social instincts: who can give any guarantee that modern democracy, the even more modern anarchism, and
indeed that predilection for the ‘commune’, the most primitive form of
social structure which is common to all Europe’s socialists, are not in
essence a huge throw-back – and that the conquering master race, that of
the Aryans, is not physiologically being defeated as well? . . .)

>>18240010
It was the Jews who, rejecting the
aristocratic value equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy
= blessed) ventured, with awe-inspiring consistency, to bring about a reversal and held it in the teeth of the most unfathomable hatred (the hatred of
the powerless), saying: ‘Only those who suffer are good, only the poor, the
powerless, the lowly are good; the suffering, the deprived, the sick, the ugly,
are the only pious people, the only ones saved, salvation is for them alone,
whereas you rich, the noble and powerful, you are eternally wicked, cruel,
lustful, insatiate, godless, you will also be eternally wretched, cursed and
damned!’ . . . We know who became heir to this Jewish revaluation . . .

– But you don’t understand that? You don’t have eyes for something
that needed two millennia to achieve victory? . . . There is nothing surprising about that: all long things are difficult to see, to see round. But that
is what happened: from the trunk of the tree of revenge and hatred,
Jewish hatred – the deepest and most sublime, indeed a hatred which
created ideals and changed values, the like of which has never been seen
on earth – there grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the
deepest and most sublime kind of love: – and what other trunk could it
have grown out of?

– ‘But why do you talk about nobler ideals! Let’s bow to the facts: the
people have won – or “the slaves”, the “plebeians”, “the herd”, or whatever you want to call them – if the Jews made this come about, good for
them! No people ever had a more world-historic mission. “The Masters”
are deposed; the morality of the common people has triumphed. You
might take this victory for blood-poisoning (it did mix the races up) – I
do not deny it; but undoubtedly this intoxication has succeeded. The “salvation” of the human race (I mean, from “the Masters”) is well on course;
everything is being made appreciably Jewish, Christian or plebeian (never
mind the words!). The passage of this poison through the whole body of
mankind seems unstoppable, even though its tempo and pace, from now
on, might tend to be slower, softer, quieter, calmer – there is no hurry . . .

>>18240010
– But let us return: the problem of the other origin of ‘good’, of good
as thought up by the man of ressentiment, demands its solution. – There
is nothing strange about the fact that lambs bear a grudge towards large
25
First essay
birds of prey: but that is no reason to blame the large birds of prey for
carrying off the little lambs. And if the lambs say to each other, ‘These
birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey and most like
its opposite, a lamb, – is good, isn’t he?’, then there is no reason to raise
objections to this setting-up of an ideal beyond the fact that the birds of
prey will view it somewhat derisively, and will perhaps say: ‘We don’t bear
any grudge at all towards these good lambs, in fact we love them, nothing
is tastier than a tender lamb.’ – It is just as absurd to ask strength not to
express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become
master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask
weakness to express itself as strength.

>>18240010
s. The symbol of this fight, written in a script which has
hitherto remained legible throughout human history, is ‘Rome against
Judea, Judea against Rome’: – up to now there has been no greater event
than this battle, this question, this contradiction of mortal enemies. Rome
saw the Jew as something contrary to nature, as though he were its
antipodean monster (Monstrum); in Rome, the Jew was looked upon as convicted of hatred against the whole of mankind:44 rightly, if one is right in
linking the well being and future of the human race with the unconditional
rule of aristocratic values, Roman values.

These bearers of oppressive, vindictive instincts, the descendants of all European and non-European
slavery, in particular of all pre-Aryan population – represent the decline of
mankind! These ‘instruments of culture’ are a disgrace to man, more a
grounds for suspicion of, or an argument against, ‘culture’ in general! We
may be quite justified in retaining our fear of the blond beast at the centre
of every noble race and remain on our guard: but who would not, a
hundred times over, prefer to fear if he can admire at the same time, rather
than not fear, but thereby permanently retain the disgusting spectacle of
the failed, the stunted, the wasted away and the poisoned? And is that not
our fate? What constitutes our aversion to ‘man’ today? – for we suffer from
man, no doubt about that. – Not fear; rather, the fact that we have nothing
to fear from man;

>>18230275
>tripfag

...the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination - their prophets fused "rich", "godless", "evil", "violent", "sensual" into one, and were the first to coin the word "world" as a term of infamy. It is this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for "poor" as a synonym for "holy" and "friend") that the significance of the Jewish people resides: With them, there begins the slave revolt in morals.

>>18230275
You can tell people haven't read it when they conflate Tradition with the past, and Modernity with the present.
Modernity is now, but the seeds of modernity came from the past and bloomed several times in the past.
Tradition ebbed and flowed. Modernity was when the masses influenced Rome into taking on Christianity, but Tradition was the crusades - on both sides.
All of these depends on Evola's definitions, which you do not read. Something you hate when people talk about alienation or the geist or whatever for Marxists and Hegel, etc.

>>18238649
then you've officially become based

>>18240118
>>18240124
>>18240139
>>18240158
>he needs 4 long copy paste posts to prove that he doesn't even know what a genealogy is

>>18240234
>he is incapable of addressing the point made

>>18240234
>but who would not, a
hundred times over, prefer to fear if he can admire at the same time, rather
than not fear, but thereby permanently retain the disgusting spectacle of
the failed, the stunted, the wasted away and the poisoned

>These bearers of oppressive, vindictive instincts, the descendants of all European and non-European
slavery, in particular of all pre-Aryan population – represent the decline of
mankind
How are these parts a genealogy? This is Nietzsche's direct opinion. He repeatedly affirms, in his own opinion, that "master morality" of the aristocrats and Aryans are superior to the slave type, which he calls "sick" and "diseased" (again, his own view). Not to mention, in accordance with the rest of his philosophy, he is not even resentful against the Jews in the same way the Nazis were. He stated it was good for them that they managed to win. But that he still finds their values slavish and contemptable nevertheless.

>>18240276
My point is that right wingers only always read the first part of the genealogy (if even). Otherwise they would know that Nietzsche didn't promote the Roman master morality. And of course that's a geanology, with did you smoke?

>>18240311
>Otherwise they would know that Nietzsche didn't promote the Roman master morality.
He promotes it all throughout his books. Even in Zarathustra. He just doesn't bother labelling it "Roman" because it is more universal than that. He calls it the will to power. Please tell me you've actually read his books and you're not regurgitating nonsense you saw on youtube.
And again, please tell me how to interpret this statement correctly:
>These bearers of oppressive, vindictive instincts, the descendants of all European and non-European
slavery, in particular of all pre-Aryan population – represent the decline of
mankind! These ‘instruments of culture’ are a disgrace to man, more a
grounds for suspicion of, or an argument against, ‘culture’ in general!
What did Nietzsche mean by this?

>>18240326
I'm at work right now, maybe I'll effort post at home later, maybe not
Nonetheless, here are a few quick points: Nietzsche thought of morality as a necessity for the historical framework. That's the reason it's a genealogy. It's "is", not "ought".
Second of all, the will to power is not = might is right, it's about developing a morality in autonomy, not out of necessity
Thirdly, a lot of people think that the whole God is dead bit of Zarathustra is triumphant, but it's actually not. Nietzsche feared what would happen if there was no "objective" (god-given)morality.
Lastly, and I can't believe that I have to spell it out, but you never know on 4chan:you do know that when he talks about jews, he means all of the abrahamic religions, right?

>>18232558
Traditionalism is perennialism. "Traditional" ideas keep returning because that's what works. It's not so much new vs old.
>>18239374
Hardly. In fact, it seems like he didn't think about it at all.

>>18240378
* is not = might is right

>>18240378
>It's "is", not "ought".
It's both you utter idiot. Read his actual words, not whatever you've been told to make Nietzsche more palatable for modern audiences. Nietzsche is giving a genealogy, and his own views of that genealogy and morality in general. Nietzsche is an intensely personal philosopher, which is necessary due to his whole, you know, "perspectivism."
>Second of all, the will to power is not = might is right, it's about developing a morality in autonomy, not out of necessity
It's both. Nietzsche explicitly defends Thrasymachus in this exact argument against Plato's strawman of it in Republic. The will to power is also necessarily power over other beings. It's in the name. I don't need to find quotes from Nietzsche to demonstrate my point here. I think one of the quotes I already posted talks about how the will to power of the creator necessitates achieving power over others, simply because it's in their nature as superior beings.
>Thirdly, a lot of people think that the whole God is dead bit of Zarathustra is triumphant, but it's actually not. Nietzsche feared what would happen if there was no "objective" (god-given)morality.
That has nothing to do with this discussion. Nietzsche did not particularly care that much about God or atheism, especially not "disproving" God. This is one of the most overblown topics with respect to Nietzsche. God was already dead long before he started writing about it. At the same time, Nietzsche considered the death of God the prelude to the "Great Noon" which he wrote about in Zarathustra, so he was certainly optimistic about the possibilities of the future (whether they would be realized or not, he didn't claim to know).
>you do know that when he talks about jews, he means all of the abrahamic religions, right?
When he talks about Jews, he talks about Jews. When he talks about the Abrahamic religions, which he specifically states as descendants of Jews, then he mentions it. But this is still a valid point. Jews are merely the most exemplified and successful historical form of the slave, hence why he focuses on them so much. My point here isn't to show that Nietzsche was an anti-Semite, but that his viewpoint is far more right wing than most people want to believe. He didn't hate Jews, he hated Jewish morals, which is to say, slave morals, which are weak, non-aristocratic and non-Aryan. In this sense, which was the original point of my posting, Nietzsche is far more closely aligned to Evola (Evola's focus on nobility and supremacy of aristocratic customs) and right wing thought in general than any other type.

>>18240378
>Nietzsche feared what would happen if there was no "objective" (god-given)morality.
Specifically on this point, what Nietzsche feared was the last man, which was already alluded to in Genealogy, when he referred to man's inability to fear man. How he considers the lack of fear of man, replaced by disgust with the pettiness, meekness, kindness, and "all-too-human-ness" of modern man, to be far inferior to the fear and awe of a superior type which has raised itself above Jewish morals and the last man, to a new and dominant type reminiscent (although new and creatively inspired) of the older aristocratic customs.

>>18240449
>It's both you utter idiot. Read his actual words, not whatever you've been told to make Nietzsche more palatable for modern audiences. Nietzsche is giving a genealogy, and his own views of that genealogy and morality in general. Nietzsche is an intensely personal philosopher, which is necessary due to his whole, you know, "perspectivism."
Ok, this will be the last reply for now since I got actual work to do, but I'm gonna explain something to you: the work has the subtitle "Eine Streitschrift" in German, which roughly translates to "a discourse-piece". Morality up until Nietzsche has been thought of as universal. Nietzsches whole point was not to give a whole new moral system, but to show that morality was not metaphysical, but rooted in history. As you point out, it's "perspectivism" but he specifically writes somewhere that it's supossed to start a discussion about the way in which it is thought of morality, not a whole new system,as he would have to defend it which he didn't want to. I know it doesn't seem that way in the book itself, but that's the tradition of the "Streitschrift" in German philosophy academia.
Funnily enough, Stirners work is also considered a "Streitschrift", which is one of the reasons it's getting memed about so much in the rest of the world. It's contrarian for the sake of breaking with discourse traditions