/lit/ - Literature

>>20150821
whats the context?

>>20150821
Cast your gaze upon Carlyle's Sartor Resartus.

>>20150821
„The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful. “ I have read Evola and one of his core beliefs is that struggle and in certain contexts war is essential to the realization of men. His book are great you should read them.
Btw that quote isnt originally from him but he uses it alot.

>>20150821
what book is the quote from

>>20151193
>one of his core beliefs is that struggle and in certain contexts war is essential to the realization of men.
makes sense, since how are you supposed to reach full realisation of human potential without going beyond what is necessary

regarding your image, it is important and good info no doubt, but evola spoke more of an inward attitude toward life, which would be more a strength of character, following higher values and not held back by emotionality or passion, which are more feminine. this implies an inner detachment to the outer and a devotion (although he was generally against this, perhaps devotion is not the right word) to a higher law, which is taken to be real, or hypra-real.

I don't know where that quote is from but in the context of his thought it makes sense. Like all Traditionalists and fascists he's against systems of thought that see man as overdetermined by "mundane" forces, whether through the reduction of human thought and behavior to biological, psychological (as opposed to mental in a spiritual and rational sense), or material forces, like unconscious Freudian drives or animal urges that have merely evolved language as another means to serve their ends, or through "amoral" political theories like the British "negative liberty" tradition that view the aim of politics as essentially the minimum necessary mediation of conflict between fundamentally selfish, atomised individuals.

Both fascists and Traditionalists counter these secular, mundane, reductionist views of the human being (which are usually mixed together and have various manifestations) with (1) normative structures, like metaphysical and moral hierarchies or systems of natural law, in which man has (2) responsibilities and duties, like the duty to be pious and moral, the duty to serve the nation, the duty to live one's life as an "imitatio" of a divine model, to seek mystical transcendence, to enable others to seek such transcendence, etc. There are thus (3) modes and attitudes proper to man in his natural habitat (i.e. within some normative structure like the nation, the volk, or the balanced hierarchy). For example it could be man's duty, because of the moral and metaphysical framework of his society, to both despise evil and promote good, to be charitable and/or to promote strength and self-reliance among his fellow men, etc.

The contrast with the purely secular, mundane system lies in the fact that men in a hierarchically and normatively conceived society can be told, asked, or encouraged to do things for reasons other than self-interest. In a "negative liberty"-based liberal democracy, one has to appeal to vague humanitarianism, but in a universalist way where excluding degenerates and freaks and exploitative outsiders becomes difficult because applying such STANDARDS to people is a form of restricting their liberty. In very scientistic societies, smart people often view the democratic process as something that has to be manipulated in order to ensure good outcomes, because people are (according to them) fundamentally just semi-rational, mostly irrational and selfish, animals. The whole game of politics is different: we simultaneously have to leave people to their liberty to be freaks and parasites sometimes, while also viewing them as cattle who need constant nudging.

Evola as both a Traditionalist and a fascist is free to reject all these premises and insist that it is possible to organise a society fundamentally "on the back of" transcendent value structures.

>>20151394
Liberalism itself used to do this, as Evola notes - it used to be the optimistic bourgeois liberalism of the Enlightenment, which took traditional Christian morality (which sees the purpose of life as ultimately a striving toward knowledge of, and thus imitation of, the divine, which is conceived as the platonic triune One: the True, the Good, and the Beautiful), cloaked it in rationalism and scientism (knowledge begets more knowledge exponentially until life is made perfect), creating a form of modern Pelagianism. The Enlightenment believed that the only thing stopping everybody from being Star Trek utopia was the irrational arbitrariness of accumulated institutions, orthodoxies, self-interested feudal magnates (up to and including kings), etc. So if you just knock down all those decrepit structures, which man is always yearning to break free from anyway, the natural divine life will flow forth, exponentially compounding upon itself until heaven on earth is achieved (Pelagianism). “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains" (Rousseau). Kant:
>Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. ... It is [possible], however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable.

This optimism died with the French Revolution, reaction, romanticism, and the long 19th century. Liberalism shifted by WW1 to being the ideology of Churchill's famous quote, "democracy is the worst system we have, except all others that have been tried." The reason for this is that the true optimism of the Enlightenment was itself a belief in a transcendent, normative order: all the things that moral religions like Christianity had elevated to their highest ideals (morality, longing for knowledge of ultimate reality, compassion and brotherly love), those things are actually just the essence of man and the natural outcome of rational thought once it is freed from irrational fetters. This positive liberty lapsed into the negative liberty of an entrenched bourgeoisie, the philistine and hypocrite class critiqued by both the left and the right for holding society in a kind of stasis that only benefits itself.

Reactionaries like de Maistre and de Bonald are more pessimistic, and conservatives like Burke, are part of the pessimistic reaction to the results of Enlightenment optimism (like The Terror). Burke insists that "reason" by itself basically creates autistic harebrained schemes that inevitably results in Jacobin terror, and that human beings exist in hard-earned matrices of essentially evolved customs, human societies are made liveable in the same way the Grand Canyon was eroded, by a continuous intergenerational smoothing of roughness. De Maistre and de Bonald don't elevate "accumulated custom" like Burke does, they instead say "see? this is why y'all need Jesus," basically unless you have a moral structure that is accepted a priori by the populace, the populace will act like shit.

>>20151398
What's interesting is that this isn't a simple reversion to medieval Christian optimism about the naturalness of virtue, it's more like saying "we should go back to when people believed in virtue a priori, because virtue isn't a priori, and only making average joes believe it is a priori will make them behave virtuously." Burke would agree that the matrix of virtue is important, he would just disagree (aggressively) that it has to be Catholic or that Catholicism is the best model for it.

De Bonald and de Maistre are advocates of both natural law (the idea that human reason unaided does not create virtue, but DISCOVERS a natural order of moral virtue), and virtue ethics (see Alisdair McIntyre for example). You could say the optimistic Enlightenment thinkers like Kant were believers in a natural law doctrine (although it's complicated in Kant's case, but effectively natural law).

The problem is how to determine which natural law is the correct one. Obviously you can't both believe that nature reveals the truth of Catholicism and that the Enlightenment revealed that the Catholic church is an irrational evil institution. So the question becomes one of who gets to decide, and thus who gets to impose the "correct" natural law on people whether they happen to agree or not. This is why the bourgeoisie and bourgeois liberalism continue to dominate politics, because while de Maistre and others like him may agree that a return to virtue ethics based on a priori faith in natural law would be ideal, the cat is already out of the bag, and we can't go back to this except by theocratically imposing it on a lot of secularised people who will resist the imposition. Of course, de Maistre and de Bonald will say that they only resist the imposition because they are being progressively corrupted by a lack of morality and virtue, making them regress more and more into selfish animals and neurotic messes who can't be reasoned with.

So there is an impasse, and because "possession is 9/10ths of the law," democratic liberalism maintains its position of dominance. It tends to absorb any system of values that doesn't violently oppose it, because any system of values that isn't violent in opposition to the bourgeoisie, i.e. that wants to TALK to the masses and CONVINCE them of a different system of values (whether that system is Catholicism communism), is necessarily agreeing with the bourgeois liberal that it is illegitimate to impose anything on anyone unless they consent to it (negative liberty). So these nonviolent dissidents form pockets of protest and get slowly rotted by liberalism like everything else does.

>>20151402
Fascism is one strain of violent, transgressive, revolutionary rebellion against bourgeois liberal ideology. It says that reasons of "national" or "volkisch" health are legitimate provocations, legitimate casus belli. To do this it has to elevate "The Nation" or "The Volk" and its "health" above the rights of individuals to negative liberty, which is a natural law doctrine: the nation or volk is a natural, normative structure, and the preservation of its health is a natural, normative act.

Evola goes even further in that he he believes in a form of natural law that is literally metaphysical and transcendent, and he believes all societies stand in various relations to this metaphysical "backbone" of the world. Like the fascist he acknowledges the necessity of "integral" polities and the maintenance of their health, but this isn't an end in itself as it would be for a "secular" or "scientific" fascist, like a fairly vulgar atheistic scientistic Nazi whose only reason for defending Germany is that he vaguely elevates the Spencerian "survival of the fittest (races)" or the Nietzschean "will to power" to a political first principle, which is ultimately just as nihilistic as the scientistic liberal's universalist "diversity" fetish.

For Evola, just as all people are naturally oriented toward, and feel an unconscious yearning for, the objective metaphysical structure of the world, and ultimately for knowledge of the divine and participation in the Good, the organic unity of a people is itself just one hypostatic element of this larger orientation. The same impulse that motivates you to disdain degeneracy in your own life is the impulse that ultimately causes nations to form, to ground themselves in virtue, and to manifest moral tendencies and behaviours that overflow in artistic and cultural expression. Unlike Burke who sees nations as fortuitously stable complexes, or de Maistre who sees people as essentially ignorant and stupid unless Catholicism is imposed on them, Evola acknowledges the nihilism and degeneracy that led to the Terror and that is now rotting all European nations from the inside, but he sees attunement toward the metaphysical backbone of the world as a perennial possibility.

>>20151405
Fascism is thus just one VEHICLE for re-establishing connection with the transcendent, metaphysical reality and its inherent moral structure. And because this structure is objective, it is the natural law or natural order and one can only either move towards it or move away from it, sloppiness or imperfection in the contingent act of establishing connection with the transcendent is permissible, in fact it is only natural that an initial attempt to re-establish contact after a century or two of dislocation and descent into nihilism will be messy and highly contingent. Thus the vicissitudes and petty differences and various flaws of the fascist states, even the fact that the fascists disagree amongst themselves about what fascism is and even if none of them actually understand the essence of fascism, all this is irrelevant because fundamentally fascism is a natural law doctrine that is oriented toward the transcendent. Even the vulgar Spencerian or Nietzschean fascist will be sublated in the process.

Because of this fundamental optimism and certainty, Evola can maintain the antinomianism of Nietzsche (whom he deeply admires) by simply stating that Nietzsche is not a "nihilist," he is only a nihilist with respect to the stifling canopy of mediocre bourgeois consciousness and its pseudo-values. It simply isn't possible to be an atheist with regard to divine metaphysics, metaphysical intuition is objective and irrefutable, the backbone of the world is there. Nietzsche went mad because he was actually the entelechy, the highest point of the bourgeois spirit of destruction and nihil-ation of everything existing, the same spirit underlying the "criticism" of the Enlightenment, but the same spirit of corrosive critique had destroyed his ability to listen to the longing for transcendence that exists in every mind whether it likes it or not.

So Evola can maintain the fierce anti-bourgeois "principle of struggle" of Nietszche and even of Marx by viewing them as partial, incomplete, essentially autistically one-sided manifestations of antinomianism, which always has a place and a function in societies with a healthy core, since it is always necessary to renew stagnant and ossified "exoteric" forms to bring them back in tune with actual esoteric knowledge, and thus renew their capacity to serve as vehicles for esoteric knowledge. He can do this because he does not believe, like a secular Nietzschean or Marxist is forced to concede as a consequent of their own position, that once everything is "critiqued," nothing remains except some meaningless animal and his amoral drives. Critique is always potentially valid because it always presupposes the possibility of learning the truth, it is essentially a clearing away of dead tissue that presupposes the healthy organism underneath.

>>20151321
Indeed i only posted the image to have a frame of reference and i agree with you that Evola gives high importance to the spirit. But lets not forget that the higher caste has both mastery of body and spirit only when these two have achieved their peak can men be realized. He talk alot about this "duality" in The Mystery of the Grail to give an exemple.

>>20151408
So the principle of struggle is simply anti-bourgeois antinomianism, but in service of a transcendent value structure that is really the centre of gravity toward which everything in existence tends, from individuals to nations and cultures to humanity as a whole. The principle of struggle has to be maintained because the corrosive effects of late bourgeois society are not merely normal derivations from the ideal, they are actively counter-traditional and have trapped human societies in a kind of moral and metaphysical nadir.

>>20150821
Take this OP

>>20151430
This chart is great although it isnt updated and i believe that Metaphysics Of War can be rather tedious as Evola´s second recommended book

>>20151414
i know, i just sometimes see these big strong men who on the inside are weak and insecure, which is a waste.

>>20151440
>This chart is great
It makes no sense. start with revolt then choose political/philosophy or esoteric.

<span class="xae" data-xae="nerd">&#x1F913;[/spoiler]

>>20151506
Going straight to Revolt is not a good ideia if you dont already have a grasp of Evola's esoteric and political tought. And you cant "pick and choose" with Evola because every aspect of his tought is connect. I guess if you really hate the esoteric tradition you can skip it but why would you be reading Evola in the first place?
>Btw The Mystery of the Grail is one of his best works and a great introduction unless you have never of the grail's tradition which would be insane if you live in the ocident.

>>20151181
<span class="xae" data-xae="smile">&#x1F642;[/spoiler] so true bro!

>>20151541
i just don't see the point of reading HT second when it's one of his most obscure and esoteric works. although perhaps if you pay attention to the symbols and remember them it would help to understand some of his work. i didn't find revolt hard to understand and it was my first book of his. also pagan imperialism might give you the wrong idea of him. overall i just think revolt is the best intro to him, laying out the world of tradition.

>>20150821
<span class="xae" data-xae="shock">&#x1F631;[/spoiler]

There is no goal, only to walk the promised road

>>20150821
“Be radical, have principles, be absolute, be that which the bourgeoisie calls an extremist: give yourself without counting or calculating, don't accept what they call 'the reality of life' and act in such a way that you won't be accepted by that kind of 'life', never abandon the principle of struggle.”

>>20151613
Fair enough.
As long as more people read and understand Evola I'm happy no need for everyone to be going trough his book in the same way.

>>20150821
YOU'VE GOT

GOT TO

FIGHT

FIGHT

FIGHT

<span class="xae" data-xae="punch">&#x1F44A;[/spoiler]

>>20151408
Excellent writeup, anon. This is why I come to /lit/. God bless you!

>>20151657
he liked the metaphysical, the transcendent, which can be seen as something being a cause in and of itself. when this applies to humans, it corresponds to obeying THE law (logos), or doing your duty, fulfilling your dharma, etc., which for ksatriyas was fighting. "fight thou for the sake of fighting and in so doing thou shalt never incur sin", where sin can be considered an error, like a deviation from law. this is very interesting from an esoteric perspective as well, a path to be taken to enlightenment. Evola claimed it was of a more Western style than Eastern, more active rather than contemplative.

>>20151748
>>20151408
Yeah. I didn't say anything, but thanks for effortposting.

>>20151394
>>20151398
>>20151402
>>20151408
>>20151416
based effortposter, thank you

>>20151430
I recommend starting with the essay Orientations and not reading so many difficult long works first

<img class="xae" data-xae width="27" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/1d3f2a13_happycat.png">

>>20151408
I kindof get why modern day fascists are so embarrassing in how they act and behave now. Imagine believing all that then getting into your Nissan Sentra and working at a call centre for some IT bs wishing you were in some Bavarian field or worse yet a journalist writing against rainbow flags for some boomer grift blog that defers to conservative neoliberal politicians

>>20153975
Yes. We are men amongst the ruins. Slaves who are aware of there cage. Modern life is totally absurd.

>>20153975
Everyone has this problem. Read Habermas' debate with Foucault, and Ferry & Renault's reply to Deleuze's defense of Foucault.

>>20151193
what a faggy kitsch image, thinking slaving away at the gym in-between your 9-5 white collar job is some kind of ennobled pursuit.

>>20150821
Evola has the best quotes and the very worst books.

>>20151659
This is a mistranslation. Evola wanted you to
TATAKAE
TATAKAE

>>20154174
I know some of these losers IRL. They get upset with things like what type of breakfasts people eat and morally prefer the type of breakfast they eat before their job working on the Internet. It's totally insane. They also often are far less hwhite and have less children than all my normie Liberal friends.


People really should not let their moral aesthetics get so far away from their material reality.

>>20154174
I dont slave away at the gym retard i enjoy it, the mere thought that for you exercise means slaving away proves that we are completely different individuals that will never get along, have fun living without achieving your potential merchant man.
>>20154983
>Losers IRL
Stop projecting your feelings about yourself and your group of liberal friends on me.

>>20154174
The gym is indeed gay but it has saved a lot of young men. Someone should shift the gymbro culture over to a culture of sharing and developing skills like DIY construction. You will get fitter faster and have fun and gain life skills by getting into farming, or helping a friend put up his new farm.

>>20155445
>i enjoy it
This is precisely what makes you such a boring uninteresting individual to be around.
>>20155516
>The gym is indeed gay but it has saved a lot of young men.
The idea of masculinity being tied to physical strength still persists and leaves a lot of effeminate men except with big muscles.

>>20156575
You speak and think like a female.

>>20157356
A Mind that is only copying "external" masculinity is sick.

If your Persona isn't integrated this is troubling.

>>20154174
Morbidly obese hands wrote this

>>20153975
This is a puerile attempt at criticism that proves nothing about the legitimacy of the ideals these people espouse. What do you expect them to do? Do you have to be Codreanu to advocate for Fascism?

>>20156575
Regular exercise and discipline does do a lot to turn around a lot of guy's depression and aimlessness, which is the norm for guys these days.

But as the previous guy noted, it just leads to being a physically and mentally healthier office drone.

>>20157752
We are going through a Codreanu drought, to be fair. Where are all the charismatic leaders?

>>20150821
isn't that the same thing commies say? <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/ec538b5c_Thonk.png">

>>20157646
It had to be a Jungfag talking shit about going to the gym lmao.

>>20151193
What a stupid image. Imagine thinking you'll have any sort of real struggle in life to become strong living in the west and being white

>>20160444
Like, just imagine how much a Somali or a Sudanese shitholer would cringe with this faggotry if he saw it

>>20151193
>live in service economy
>have to get in debt for a degree to work a shitty job for barely livable wage
>serve customers
>go to gym and join Tinder to become a court jester
There is no
>"I invoke the Gods beneath and become the Warrior I am meant to be. I never wanted to it to be easy.... Through blood, sperm retention and sweat I slay the dragon, I pick up the crown, I take the prize. No Man has the privilege to be amateur in Fitness. I am Stoic. I am God. I am the Ultimate Redpilled Alpha Male. Through effort and hard work I get a woman who has a body count of 25 before marriage and I get to raise someone else's kids. Redpill.... "

Dude, stop posting that cringe quote shit with Greek statuettes and other stupid shit. We dont live in sparta or Ancient Grease. You live in a modern GDP Keynesian service economy, you take debt and serve customers and get paid a shitty wage. At best you might go to gym and break sweat once a week but not work out too hard because that would be bad according to science so better go easy there.

>>20160536
I never understood why guys felt the need to make working out sound so gay. The joy and overall advantages of being healthy, strong and aesthetic should speak for themselves as reasons.

>>20160554
Because you are lying. You go to gym because of looks. Otherwise you would do some actually fun physical activity. But oh wait you can't do anything fun since it's not 'struggle' and it wont make you look 'aesthetic' for the gay bois
I am certain there are physical activities that are much more enjoyable than lifting objects like an autist

>>20160579
Gym work can be plenty of fun. Especially when you're doing it with your boys or hitting PRs. Most people there who are serious usually supplement their routines with running or swimming or some sort of cardio anyway.

>>20151408
Nice work, I appreciate the effort

>>20150821
>never abandon JIHAD

>>20151394
>>20151398
>>20151402
>>20151405
>>20151408
>>20151414

Thanks for posting. I had an idea of Evola's angle towards the transcendent since I've read a few of his works, but this historical context really helps explain his teleology and his connection to Nietzsche (which I could never figure out on my own).

>>20160454
>Somali or a Sudanese shitholer
Why care what subhuman's think?

>>20150821
I don't care about politics or fascism, I have never met a single person on the same page as me, metaphysically and intellectually speaking, I'm not talking about prattling on about God or ideals, those who truly understand these things keep quiet about it, evola is fine but more so his insights post-ww2 as his writings become more radically individualistic, which is necessary for the current age, well holitistically all his works are fine under a more refined lens, "points of view" is what some people seem to forget when it comes to an author, just like there are many paths which lead to the mountains summit, comparing authors putting one against the other like Evola against Guénon is not unlike the methodologies of historical materialism, a sort of more objective and rigid comparative study, in the most dualistic and polytheistic sense. A flaw found in an author firstly is not the Authors flaw but your flaw, nothing is irreconcilable some paths up the mountain are longer and others are shorter, from this point of view. Some maybe even are dead ends in of themselves but these dead may branch off into a distinct but not disconnected path, the path in this sense is indescribable with respects to the individual.

>>20150821

I don't care about politics or fascism, I have never met a single person on the same page as me, metaphysically and intellectually speaking, I'm not talking about prattling on about God or ideals, those who truly understand these things keep quiet about it, evola is fine but more so his insights post-ww2 as his writings become more radically individualistic, which is necessary for the current age, well holitistically all his works are fine under a more refined lens, "points of view" is what some people seem to forget when it comes to an author, just like there are many paths which lead to the mountains summit, comparing authors putting one against the other like Evola against Guénon is not unlike the methodologies of historical materialism, a sort of more objective and rigid comparative study, in the most dualistic and polytheistic sense. A flaw found in an author firstly is not the Authors flaw but your flaw, nothing is irreconcilable some paths up the mountain are longer and others are shorter, from this point of view. Some maybe even are dead ends in of themselves but these dead ended paths may branch off into a distinct but not disconnected path, the path in this sense is One, endless and always alive with respects to the individual.

>>20160536
You are coping a bit dude. If you live in America, there has literally never been a better time to start with nothing, become rich, and turn your dreams into a reality. The simple fact is just that most people aren’t even trying to break away from their routine. Your mind is limiting you much more than the economy TRUST me. You couldn’t become financially independent by 30 in any other time in history. What do you want to do exactly

>>20163107
>You are coping a bit dude. If you live in America, there has literally never been a better time to start with nothing, become rich, and turn your dreams into a reality.

I'm in Australia here, I lost my job in retail, got into uni but had to defer because I was unable to attend - all because of vaccine mandates, so for me it is not great and it is not merely a matter of mind you retarded optimist.

>>20163113
I'm also not the guy you replied to, but anyway if you think becoming financially independent is so simple, then you should outline in a couple simple steps the way to do this, because as I see it, my development in this respect has been limited societally, in a way not necesserily within my control.

>>20163107
>there has literally never been a better time to start with nothing
There is no such thing as starting from nothing in this world you delusional coper, if we are truly speaking about starting from a "true" nothing then it is Extremely difficult almost impossible to get anywhere, some help needs to come from somewhere in these cases.

>>20163107
>Muh Rags to riches, Bankers don't control everything, the game isn't rigged, Mind over Bankers power and money, the odds aren't stacked against you, there is no such thing ad hardship in the "West" - you have it so great... and especially if you are White.

KYS there are hardly any global differences in terms of cost of living vs. Iiving expenses per country and inside the country. In the West you simply have the illusion of some sort of Future outcome and upward social mobility - which would require you to move out of the West and into some cheaper place to capitalise on.

>>20150821
>I have never read Evola
good
>that quote has stuck with me
the read Fichte, he's the one who actually developed that concept, Evola just stole it and give it a magic/mythological make up
also reading Fichte will prepare you for otehr fundamental western thinkers like Hegel,Nietzsche and Heidegger

>>20151408
So in conclusion...... Fascism good?

>>20163037
I don't care about what Europeans think either buddy but I can still empathise with them

>>20163107
Finance capitalism purposefully makes you poor so you can work their service jobs and not get anywhere. There is no "rags to riches" that you may have seen decades ago.

>>20150821
Me big tough warrior, me fight a lot.

>>20165249
ooga booga

>>20163107
Lol, why is everyone so virulently assmad about this? Its like you all actively WANT to not have innitiative.

Have you tried going to electricians degree? or start an apprenticeship somewhere? everyone ever thought that your mentality might be inhibiting you slightly? Tell, me what did all of you do that got yourselves fucked over? Or better yet, what didnt you do?

>>20154174
>slaving away
spiritually dead fingers typed this

>>20159933
be the change you wish to see in the world
t. some indian

>>20150821
>i havent read any books and like to pretend to be an intellectual by looking at memes with hecking based quotes, 4chan please do my thinking for me!
go back you tard or better yet actually sit down and read something for longer than a few seconds for once

>>20166949
I agree, I get being critical of the boring modern world but fuck… go do something with your life. Stop being sad about it and make a change.

I’m convinced the average westerner is spiritually sick. There’s no virility, no life energy in these kind of people. Sure, you might think it’s cringe to idealize past great men, or great archetypes, or post motivational pictures of statues and paintings but at least those people are evading the malaise.

Fill your heart as full as you can, leave nothing undone during your time here; demand everything of this life.

>>20167696
good on you bro,
I have been apprenticing at a local blacksmith and its been pretty great. You dont have to ignore problems, or not want change, but if you are not actively persuing something of your own will while understanding the likely roadblocks and practicalities to get there, and just complaining like a defeatist, I dont think you deserve or even want it in an intrinsic way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxGRhd_iWuE

>>20154983
>I know some of these losers IRL. They get upset with things like what type of breakfasts people eat and morally prefer the type of breakfast they eat before their job working on the Internet
Vegans? I don't think many vegans read Evola, anon.

>>20150821

This is one of the biggest problems with National Socialism - there are no definitions or explanations for most of the philosophy.

It is based upon survival of the fittest. And thus the idea is that struggle makes you fit for purpose.

You can compare this with philosophical ideas from people like Sam Harris - what a joke - where "Human suffering" is the great evil and must be avoided at all costs.

How then does a fat guy become the right weight? Or a dumb person learn?

Only through personal suffering and work - which the Jews and their ilk completely refuse to take part in - can this be done.

So Evola's statement is thus.

"Have Principles. Never abandon the principle of struggle".

>>20160579
Look, rock climbing and trail running are definitely more fun, but let's not pretend that hitting a 2pl8 bench for the first time doesn't feel godlike. Lifting has it's moments.

>>20151193
Basically dude was a cuck nerd who idolized Chad because he bullied him in high school and he wanted to suck his cock like a gay sissy boy.

>>20163107
>>You are coping a bit dude. If you live in America
I don't though, now what?

bump

>>20168066
Back to r3ddit, you sound like you're about 15 and listen to the h3h3 podcast.

>tfw riding the tiger unironically
That book has good advice.

I say, Evola is most based.

>>20150821
How about you read it for yourself and figure it out faggot. Stop asking for spoonfeeding!
/thread

>>20154174
I bet you have four inch wrists

>>20163719
I think the idea is that it is an attempt of grasping towards something, but there can probably be other ways this is done, Evola from what I remember just saw it as a method to go about things, but I think he didn't wind up liking it

>>20150821
What were his thoughts on John Dee?

>>20163107
Financially independent by 30, in debt from medical bills at 50, working till 80, dead at 83.

Ahh, the American dream.