/lit/ - Literature

>>18666074
I would topple that tiger.

>>18666074
He was a cripple.

>>18666074
Dude was a cripple

>>18666081
Just like how I would topple your mom oohhhhhhhhh

>>18666082
>>18666085
He wasnt a cripple for the entirety of his life. His youth was spent climbing mountains and fighting in WW1.

>>18666081
>>18666082
>>18666085
Evola, the Tiger, and the fash

>>18666074
Guenon (190 cm chad) easily moggs any one on this board.

Who are we kidding?
You AIDS fags couldn’t fight your way out of a paper bag.

>>18666074
I can imagine Nietzsche rambling and posting tldr shitposts.

>>18666115
Guenon would die after one punch, he had health problems

>>18666074
He would win due to getting help from Satan because he is in Hell.

>>18666074
Considering the average person here is a limp-wristed twink, the Bronte sisters could probably beat /lit/ in a fight.

>>18666115
This

ive read a lot of guenon and only the meme evola book (revolt), but im wondering if not evola might actually be the more based one? what's their most marked difference?

>>18666839
In very basic terms, Guenon proposed removal from the corrupted world and practicing asceticism, while Evola advocated for detaching from the world but still living in it, through action (Ride the Tiger). Brahmin vs Kshatriya if you will. Therefore some Guenonians will call Evola a fake traditionalist. But it's why I lean towards Evola, although both have their merits. Neither should be dismissed nor taken as gospel.

>>18666854
is it worth reading evola as a non-white person?

>>18666854
>Although both have their merits. Neither should be dismissed nor taken as gospel
this

>>18666854
Evola is better. The sort of Geunoneon detachment only works if you have some basic human needs met like friends, intimacy, and something to preoccupies your time like a job. Good luck being a friendless khv NEET and finding solace in contemplation. In the end, contemplation only compliments a life. It can't fulfill a life on it's own. That's why monks lived with other monks and didn't all become hermits.

>>18667237
Yes, if you are asian or native american. If you are black than no.

>>18667281
what if im MENA

>>18667291
if you are berber/arab you are fine

>>18667237
Yes, just remember that his perspective is mostly Italian/European. But like >>18667281 said I don't think his perspective would be very useful to SSA.
>>18667243
There's too many people here that seem to want to dismiss one for the other but I think they're very complementary
>>18667250
The problem is that they both speak to specific human types. They're not advocating universality at all, but people are used to seeing it from that perspective. We can't all fuck off to the east and join a secret tradition, although some people are inclined to do so and that's fine. But for the majority we have to find our way through this decline and Evola's practicality is better suited for that.

>>18666100
And now he's dead.
I don't even need to do anything, I've already won! He's already dead!
True reddit moment foeshoe

>>18667387

Evola walked around outside while bombs were detonating around him.
I think that is cool and badass in my opinion if you ask me.

>>18667436
I guess he found out what consequences can a stroll during bombardment bring

>>18667387
>he's dead.
He's an ascended master.

>>18667452
You think he didn't know?

>>18667364
>>18667319
how did evola view mena?

>>18667436
He was literally me

>>18667461
Neutrally, he admired the ancient traditions and has written some essays on aspects of islam (incl jihad). I don't think he liked them flooding Europe though, obviously.

>>18666074

Evola had a rather Northern European phenotype for an Italian desu. Or do lots of Italians look like that??

>>18667490
The more north you go the more northern European the Italians get, and the more south you go the more mediterranean. But there's always exceptions.

>>18666375
>implying he couldn't redirect the punch to your own face with the sheer power of his will
Guenon is one of the gentlest men that ever walked this earth, he would just force your hand to stay in its place without harming you.

>>18667490
>>18667521
Evola was Sicilian by decent and this is painfully obvious to anyone who knows what Southern Italians look like. I'm curious what idea you have in your head about what South Italians face is like.

>>18666854
>Therefore some Guenonians will call Evola a fake traditionalist.
It goes deeper than that. Some of the critique is that his writing is downright Satanic. Both were wrong but Evola was corruptive.

>>18667596
What is satanic about Evola???

>>18667607
Nothing. Evola is kind of Lucifarian in his acceptance of left-handed occultism but he isn't "satantic" in the crowley sense of the word. He never considered himself an anti-christ. A lot of apocrypha about Evola claims he had affinity for sufi islam which definitely is opposite of satanic.

>>18667667
What is left hand occultism vs right hand occultism?

>>18667561
It's only the dark hair and maybe the eyebrows that make him out as Sicilian

>>18667607
His overt espousal of the left hand path not to mention his particular affinities for the occult, paganism, magic, etc. His thinking leads many of the more unwary readers directly into either Islam, hermeticism, Gnosticism, neopaganism, tantra, or overt Luciferianism/Satanism. Notice that none of these are true alternatives in and of themselves. Don’t you find it a bit odd that his thinking leads in every direction that has an antithesis to Christianity? When taken in holistically, he seems blatantly anti-Christian if you ask me.

>>18667667
>he isn't "satantic" in the crowley sense of the word
Yes, he is. He even wrote a book speaking highly of Crowley. Evola was first and foremost an anti-Christian, an anti-Christ, thinker. There is even a letter from René Guenon that was recovered which warns him of Satanic beliefs, Guenon’s own words.

>>18666074
i cant think of any where i wouldnt win in a fight
i was thinking of Mishima and D'Annunzio but then i remembered theyre both 5'3

>>18667703
One of those is not like the others, christshit.

>>18667698
Post a picture of what you think a young Sicilian man looks like.
>>18667741
vertical stature doesn't mean anything, it's all muscle mass. If Mishima kicked you in the balls with his toned legs your lanklet ass would go down in a second.

>>18667711
>He even wrote a book speaking highly of Crowley.
he didn't speak "highly" of him. He just complimented Crowley's main work and gave an analysis of it without going into the spoopy aspects of Crowley's other thinking.

>>18667711
iirc Evola had never read Crowley since he didnt know English and was extremely unfamilar with his work when he wrote that piece. And I think later in his life he completely dismissed Crowley.

>>18667757
>Post a picture of what you think a young Sicilian man looks like.

>>18667755
It doesn’t matter, genius. If you can’t see the commonality, you’re simply a lost cause and another scratch on the chalkboard of the never ending line of peons who read Evola and then fundamentally misunderstand, probably get led astray. The guy was fundamentally an anti-Christian thinker. As a matter of fact. Period.

>>18667769
And that’s a good thing

>>18667458
It's hard to say. The only way I can explain this supposed walks is if I presuppose that he firmly believed that he was guarded by providence which would allow him to safely return home.

Is the whole casual walking home while bombs were dropping from the sky completely proven or is that just something Evola said?

>>18667760
He was friends with Crowley, said almost verbatim that Crowley was a man of first rank, suggested that his system was more or less initiatic. If that’s not speaking highly of him, I don’t know what is.

>>18667769
>he guy was fundamentally an anti-Christian thinker.
He said Christianity was a good religion for the slave caste. If you think this is an insult then your problem is being used to everything having sarcastic or ironic undertones. This wasn't tongue-in-cheek.

>>18667461
>I shared my masochistic feelings with him. He nodded agreement: ‘Yes, you know what I think. It is not fascism that failed Italy, it is the Italian people – I should say, a certain type of Italian, the lowest element, the majority, alas - who let down the regime’s ideals...Yes, there were exceptions, like the heroic charge of that cavalry regiment in Russia – you must have seen the film, Carica Eroica, I am sure – like the boys of the Decima (Navy Commando Units). Still, you can see what Mussolini meant when he said that you could not win a war with merda. Too many Italians were merda. Their conduct in the war showed they had no stomach, no guts, no balls. Therefore they took their revenge on their leader, the one who had tried to forge them into another people, into what they were not. For a while they had believed it. I mean, they had thought of themselves as something different, heroic, hardy, a people of steel, so they were all the more enraged when they realised what they actually were – ballless, spineless, invertebrates. So they transferred their self-hatred on their fallen leader. The scapegoat, a Hebrew myth, comes handy here. And the Jews had taken their religion from the Egyptians, as Dr Freud claimed. Seth, again, obviously...’
>He paused, looking grim. ‘Seth was a desert god. But there are oases in deserts. Places of rest and refreshment. There is a kind of purity there...I could have been born in a desert...providing there were mountains there, I would have been happy.’
>Sufi of Rome by Frank Gelli
He was fine with it as a region but I don't know what was his opinion on the inhabitants. He seemed to hate the italians so much lol.

>>18667783
Do you have the source for that?

>>18667762
Not only did he read Crowley, he translated Crowley into Italian and knew him personally. He even wrote an essay on Crowley called Il Satanismo.

>>18667796
It’s suggested in his personal notes from his translation of Liber Aleph and you can find his essay on Crowley in the Mask and Face of Contemporary Spirutalism. The guy was so hung up on shocking the bourgeois and being anti-bourgeois that he endorsed overt Satanism because it was “magical”.

>>18667789
What? Do you think I’m retarded or something? That’s an obvious slight and not at all sarcastic or ironic. Only an idiot would think so. I don’t even know what in my reply would suggest I wasn’t clear on that. My reply was stated matter of fact my and it holds true in the face of it.

Guenon was weirder looking, but Evola seemed scarier and more threatening.

>>18667757
youre the reason people make fun of manlets

>>18667820
>parachute pants

>>18667807
>It’s suggested in his personal notes
Yeah, I'm asking you for the source, not "suggestions" and also exactly where it's found. I'm not doing your work for you.
> his essay on Crowley in the Mask and Face of Contemporary Spirutalism
Which was directly critical of Crowley?

I'm not trying to sound cringe or whatever, but does anyone else get a sense of dark, evil power from pictures of Evola?? He looked like he radiated dark energy.

>>18667797
dam whoever gave me my info must have been lying. i cant believe someone would just lie on the internet like that. i hate the kali yuga

>>18667836
He has a goth thing going on. Always wearing black with dark eyeliner.

>>18667836
From the more popular picturres of him yes, but in that interview of his on youtube he seemed much warmer than expected. He seemed like someone who would great for a comfy chat

>>18667852
Maybe he mellowed with age, or maybe he just got better at masking his power level.

>>18667850
He looks like the dude from Arcade Fire.

>>18667871
But that guy just looks like some fag TRYING to be dark and edgy, whereas Evola was the real deal.

If Evola was satanic then how come he was politically right wing, anti-modernist, anti-materialist, nationalist, etc.? Satanists are usually some type of left wing/progressive/globalist/Marxist.

>>18667883
>Satanists are usually some type of left wing/progressive/globalist/Marxist.
or libertarian

>>18667868
Probably the first. He did seem like the person that he was depicted as in the Sufi of Rome

>>18667883
Because he wasn't. Even Crowley, as weird as he is, wasn't a Satanist.

>>18667940
Crowley was definitely without a doubt a satanist and also a glowie.

>>18667957
Nope. Well, perhaps a glowie, but not a Satanist.

>>18667781
You misunderstand, he explicitly wrote why he did what he did. He did that to prove that one should live one's life without regard for external consequences. It's completely in line with his entire philosophy. It's like the tale of the Pompeiian soldier who kept to his station while the town was buried.
>Is the whole casual walking home while bombs were dropping from the sky completely proven or is that just something Evola said?
No it's really what happened.

>>18667836
I never got the whole "Evola evil spooky" meme.

Evola just seemed like a hyper-redpilled wise old man who saw beyond the matrix from a young age.

>>18666074
Unironically Plato. Nigga was jacked af, antiquity was on another level. He won 3 gold medals for wrestling in the Olympics for fucks sake. Just imagine being Aristotle or some incel sophist, knowing that if he spots you pissed drunk in the streets of Athens it could very well end with you getting choked out in the drit, dominating you both intelectually and physically. None of the later writers can compare, with their pale sickly bodies and soft pen hands. Plato would piledrive the whole western canon post-rome, easily.

>>18668238
>be Plato
>be mildly annoyed by other local thinker
>just rape them

>>18667836
No. Every time I see him I imagine him saying "Mamma Mia" and it makes me smile.

>>18668258
How could you possibly be more based than that?

>>18668220
Mussolini was somewhat fearful of Evola and always treated him with utmost respect. You're not wrong though.

>>18667883
Satanists are not usually anything, besides Satanism. Evola’s goal was anti-bourgeois, which he saw as the societal norm of the time, and as a result, he endorsed overly Satanic ideas albeit not Satanism directly because he found it be appropriately subversive. People who read between the lines will see this quite clearly.

>>18667940
Quite the hot take because even Evola considered him a Satanist and said “we consider Crowley a Satanist as he invites us to do so”.

>>18667833
>Yeah, I'm asking you for the source
Find it yourself you lazy fuck. I’m not your personal librarian and I couldn’t give a fuck if you get your source text handed to you on a silver platter or not. The notes are easily accessible and so is the book. You just want to pretend i didn’t give you the literal fucking source so you can conveniently continue to deny I suspect.
> Which was directly critical of Crowley?
No. It’s the one which says literally that Crowley’s initiation was valid and that was a magical adept.

>>18667836
That is intentional. As I said before, so much of his project was about being what he considered anti-bourgeois.

>>18666074
Pretty sure that even in advanced age Junger could beat everyone here in a fight.

>>18667852
he literally looks like a fucking vampire in that interview lol.

>>18668358
Yeah he does kek, but vampires are meant to be charming are they not?

>>18668298
>he endorsed overly Satanic ideas
He didn't

Very gay thread.

>>18668746
Yes, he did. It’s not even up for debate.

>>18668238
I wish i like Plato

>>18668298
>>18668746
Crowley can be tricky. When one reads the second-hand accounts of him, and Wikipedia entries, or even some of the art/aesthetics associated with Thelema (plenty of 666's) the immediate impression is of some one playing with Satanism.
Of course when you actually read his works you strangely find him condemning the "black brothers", black lodges, and self-identifying as "right handed" etc.

Personally, and this may sound like splitting hairs, Crowley is best understood as an Anti-Christ figure, rather than a strictly satanic one. This is how he saw himself, but an Anti-Christ within a metaphysics and cosmology, that saw Christianity as false, or at least greatly flawed and and whatever validity it had is restricted to its particular Aeon.
This is Crowley's Nietzscheanism (N. being one of the patron saints of Thelema after all) and his Anti-Christ is very much Nietzsche's Anti-Christ or Zarathustra who is clearing the old and sclerotic traditions of the past to make way for the new, relevant, healthy.
While not interchangeable this has similarities to Evola's own relationship with Nietzsche and Christianity.

From a Christian perspective this is absolutely Satanic, no way around it.
However it isn't the kind of Satanism that most Non-Christians would think. And certainly anyone looking for a "genuine" satanic experience predicated on explicitly dark and evil forces isn't going to find much of it in Crowley's Yoga-Kabbala syncretism.

>>18668880
We can get as semantic as we want to get about it. The fact remains, and you agree, that from a Christian perspective, Crowley was Satanic/Luciferian as was Evola. You can call it instead “anti-Christ(ian)” but the point remains the same. His thinking is anti-Christian and to the extent it can be said to be Christian, it’s a critical, fundamentally oppositional, even subversive sort of Christianity, or Satanic, as one might say.

>>18668797
>>18668907
Only if you go by "everything not christian is satanic" then yes sure but given the tradtionalist/perennialist perspective that would be retarded and redundant. Evola wasn't a christian and never claimed to be. But he clearly wasn't a satanist either.

Julius Evola vs Father Seraphim Rose would be an epic showdown

>>18668925
No. That’s a blatant mischaracterization of what I said. His writing is not merely an endorsement of atheism or certain alternatives but is rather a concentrated and deliberate endorsement of subversive anti-Christianity and left hand path spirituality in a specifically Christian context. In other words, he endorses Satanism, literally. Also, he actually did imply that he was a Christian and specifically stated that he was a Catholic but I don’t know why that should matter in the first place since you would have no reason to expect him to do so.

>>18668907
Yes. We are not in disagreement.

I am simply trying to point out how by necessity a Christian perspective is going to have a lower-barrier of entry for what is or isn't considered to be Satanic to the point where, for some people at least, simply being non-Christian to be of an implicitly satanic nature as the person is enmeshed in all manner of worldliness.

And, by the same token, what is generally considered to be Satanic by Non-Christians will have to be much more explicitly, and more importantly "ideologically pure".
To take another example something like The Process Church of The Final Judgement was, for Christians, obviously Satanic, regardless of them being cool with Jesus. However, from a Non-Christian point of view they are just some weird mishmash that could be considered just as Christian as they were Satanic.

You are never going to pin down someone like Crowley with a definition that meets the criterion of all parties. He crams too many things together that on their own people have multiple opinions on for that to ever happen. So you are going to find yourself having these types of exchanges with people over his Satanic-ness over and over and nothing will really come of it.

But yeah, we don't really disagree, I was just trying to flesh out where I was coming from on that. Have a good one.

>>18668991
I think that from even a “non-Christian” point of view “anti-Christian” means exactly what it applies, and that is to be anti-Christian and not non-Christian.

>>18668969
Stop lying. He did not endorse atheism, he was anti-atheist. Again, not being a christian does not automatically make one an atheist. Why are you christians like this? Of course hw as anti-christianity in several regards but that's because modern christianity has nothing to do with traditional christianity and is mostly empty. That does not equal satanism unless, like I said, you view everything not christian as satanic. Which, again, given the perennialist perspective, is utterly retarded and redundant.
Also, he actually did imply that he was a Christian and specifically stated that he was a Catholic
No, you have no idea what you're talking about. He was raised in a catholic household and so stated he always held a certain affinity for the exoteric aspects of catholicism but in no way does that mean he implied he was christian. He made it clear he wasn't.
Being critical of some aspects of christianity does not make him a satanist (unless you go by your retarded standards), praising other aspects of christianity does not mean he implied he was christian.

>>18669003
I said his writing was not an endorsement of atheism, you illiterate. I didn’t even bother to read further since you got it wrong right off the bat.

Prime Hemingway

>>18669014
> His writing is not merely an endorsement of atheism or certain alternatives but is rather a concentrated and deliberate endorsement of subversive anti-Christianity
You absolute retard. Do you know what words mean? You misuse them and then blame me for getting it wrong? Not merely means "not just but also this." You therefore said it was both. But what else would I expect from a retard who can only see things in black and white. muh "everything non-christian is satanic".

>>18668995
Sure. But I would consider "Anti-Christian" to be something that isn't necessarily exhausted by the term "Satanism".
Or, if it is, we then require another term to distinguish degrees, things like Richard Dawkins', or the New Atheist's, Anti-Christian attitude from those of, say, explicit theistic Satanists and all many of people in-between. Because, while it may be fun to call and dismiss Dawkins as Satanist, if we wholly equate him with some edgelord teen carving blood pentagrams and reciting the Lord's Prayer backwards with the intention of gaining supernatural powers or whatever then we lose something in the way of explanatory power as we sacrifice our ability to distinguish differences and nuances.

>>18669040
Go away, ESL. I’m not here to offer English lessons right now.

>>18669052
Sorry, but it doesn’t matter what you consider “anti-Christian” to mean. I am only concerned with what the word means as a matter of fact, that is, to be opposed to Christianity, Christians, or Christ. No further distinguishing necessary. Richard Dawkins is an atheist, something Julius Evola was not and so to drag him into it as some sort of parallel is at best confused and at worse disingenuous.

>>18669075
>I don't understand and misuse words, thereby losing the argument, but you're the ESL!
I accept your concession, and thank you for proving once again that christians are retarded.

>>18669075
So is the discussion about Satanism or Anti-Christianity? Because originally it was Satanism, but now you are saying your concern is strictly Anti-Christianity.
Do you consider the two terms to be 100% synonymous? And I don't believe you can't infer the relevance of bringing Dawkins, or New Atheists, in to my previous illustration if this is the case.

>>18669153
>So is the discussion about Satanism or Anti-Christianity?
Neither. It’s about his overtly Satanic writing.
> Because originally it was Satanism, but now you are saying your concern is strictly Anti-Christianity.
Never said that.
>Do you consider the two terms to be 100% synonymous?
No.
>And I don't believe you can't infer the relevance of bringing Dawkins, or New Atheists, in to my previous illustration if this is the case.
Well, I do so..