/lit/ - Literature

>>20413326
Yes?

>>20413344
So you admit to reading a fag-enabler?

>>20413347
Sure, when they're actually real. What's it to me?

>>20413360
>When they're actually real
Psychotic delusuons are never "real", and tolerating them has been a blight.

>55% man
>55% woman

Pic related

>>20413372
If you think his metaphysics are wrong, give a reason why. The specifics of how a society deals with these realities is a completely separate question.

>>20413395
Homosexuality is intrinsically disgusting. I should no more have to explain why necrophilia is objectionable.

>>20413413
Yes, disgusting things can be real. Some people are born with tumors in their face, those are also real. The number of actual, natural homosexuals is so small that they're not really an issue worth worrying about.

>>20413450
They should be made an example of to discourage moral sickness.

>>20413457
Pot meet kettle

>>20413326
Was Evolo a fag?

>>20413467
Deflection. Criminals and deviants are by definition the minority, but we err by ignoring them.

>>20413457
Good luck, don't expect amazing results from pushing a metaphysical issue into morality.

>>20413326
I think there's a lot of truth in this. Just look at photographs of lesbians, especially lesbian couples. One of them will usually be very masculine. It's not just a matter of how they dress and so on. It's their genetics. They're screwups. Similarly with faggots. They really are a large part female.

His second point is fair enough too. Since their behaviour is the inevitable result of their physiological nature, it's pointless to try to treat them as though they're just being willful. How you decide to deal with them for the overall good of society is another matter of course.

>>20413326
Keep reading his book on sex:
>If, therefore, we assume homsexuality to conform to these carnal conditions [of those of Alcibiades in the Symposium] or to correspond to ordinary sexual relations between man and woman, then we may well describe it as a deviation, not from a conventional or ethical point of view, but precisely from the standpoint of the metaphysics of sex.

>But it is necessary to take into account the possibility of constitutional mutations, a possibility that has been given little consideration by sexologists; that is, we must also bear in mind cases of regression. It may be that the governing power on which the sexual nature of a given individual depends (A nature that is truly male or female) may grow weak through neutralization, atrophy, or reduction of the latent stateof the characteristics of the other sex, and this may lead to the activation and emergence of these recessive characteristics. And here the surroundings and the general atmosphere of society play a not unimportant part. In a civilization where equality is the standard, where differences are not linked, where promiscuity is in favor, where the ancient idea of "being true to oneself" means nothing anymore--in such a splintered and materialistic society, it is clear that this phenomenon of regression and homosexuality should be particularly welcome, and therefore it is in no way a suprise to see the alarming increase in homosexuality and the "third sex" in the latest "democratic" period, or an increase in sex changes to an extent unparalleled in other eras.

>>20413326
yes he says bullshit like this on occasion, as if you could quantify how feminine or masculine a soul is on absolute terms. not even he is free from the enlightenment mania of confusing math with physics

>>20413469
Apparently he slept around a lot. Not unrealistic he went down on some of that med boipucci aswell

>>20413450
The thing is tumor face can't get laid but Freddie mercury over here can get ass whenever he pleases.lookism is real and its tumor face who is the real victim here.

>>20413372
>everything i don't like is fake!
I'm sure you, like everyone else, has some thin scaffolding of justification surrounding your belief, but I'm not addressing that. I am addressing precisely that little axiom of individual, subjective dislike around which you've built the structure from which you're currently tossing dirt clods, small pebbles, and polished turds.

>>20413326
Isn't this literally just Wine-nigger?
How the hell is Evola still 'respected'—fascists must simply not understand Heidegger enough to continue espousing this hack.

>>20414301
not him but you type like a massive faggot. in fact it’s only been about 10 seconds since I read it and I’ve already forgotten what actual point you made, I just remember you said it cringe

>>20414310
Can you elaborate further on this Heidegger-Evola thing? Why not settle with old known form of transcendence that exist across different cultures and time instead of searching being (that will be discovered by a German) for what?

>>20414348
Write properly; I have no clue what you're saying. Both were fascists. One was a hack, the other very intelligent. simple as.

>>20414365
Evola was not a fascist, he was never a member of any fascist party, etc., unlike Heidegger. Heidegger also cucked (both literally and figuratively) and converted to Catholicism before he died, which lends more practical weight to Evola if anything. He also let his family doctor impregnate his wife.

>>20414317
Let me rephrase it in your language then, zoomzoom.
>Bruh fr fr u jus spoutin BELIEF. What im finna say is no cap u got all these words no cap but like... the words they jus... bruh... they jus sayin wut u BELIEVE cuz wen it boil down 2 it we all got words u dig... no cap fr fr but it's jus hella cringe when u so obviously jus usin the words ex partum and that's a fact no cap... bruh u gotta realize u just ex partum CREATIN u words to support the belief bruh... no cap... smdh fr fr

>>20414373
Evola literally said he was a super-fascist, dumbfuck. Hei-tan was always a Catholic (he went to a Jesuit School) and if had actually read any of his work—which of course I would not presume to impose upon you, given the difficulties with which you would 'understand' it—you would know immediately.

Cuckoldry is the thinking man's fetish, ask Socrates.

>>20414388
>Evola literally said he was a super-fascist
No he didn't, and he has an entire book criticizing it.
>Hei-tan was always a Catholic
Ok, so he never believed any of his own 'philosophical' nonsense to begin with, got it.
>Cuckoldry is the thinking man's fetish
Is that what you tell yourself to cope with your wife preferring actual men?

>>20414388
>>20414417
Is there anything more boring than an argument about which political belief system describes someone or something? It's the most superficial possible discussion on literally anything.
>which shaped hole does this peg fit into?
>picrel

>>20414431
It's simple, one was a member of a fascist party, one wasn't and refused to be. There's isn't any room for discussion or argument.

>>20414436
Oh, yeah, of course, that's SUPER interesti— oh, I'm sorry, I've got somewhere else to be. Have a good one!

>in all reality, this guy was an 'ist, and the other guy wasn't actually into that 'ism, but a totally different one! it's fascinating stuff, really!

>>20414417
You haven't read Heidegger, stop pretending to have. It would take a retard not to see how painfully Catholic Being and Time is. Principally Augustine, but Aquinas, too.

>>20414388
Oh, so you don't know shit about what you are talking about, I get it know.

>>20414577
now*

>>20414565
Employing Aristotelian metaphysics doesn't make one Catholic midwit, Aquinas read the arabs, what now?

>>20414382
jesus man sort yourself out

>>20413326
wait, is this why I'm only really truly attracted to tomboys and femboys? I'm 55% a man?

>>20414681
>tfw you walk in on your male roomate getting changed and lose 0.348% of your manhood.

>>20414310
Regurgitated Heidegger isn't original, either

>>20414584
Just admit you haven't read Hei-tan, anon; it's blatant that you haven't.

>it was real in my mind

Just like everything else Evola wrote.

Should I stop reading Evola after I finish The Mystery of the Grail?

A droll, German-speaking housekeeper usually opened the door of Evola’s flat. I much regretted not speaking German and told Evola so. That led him to reminisce about his time spent in Germany. He told me how he had once been invited to a gathering of top SS officers. Himmler had addressed them on the subject of homosexuality:
>‘He declared himself astonished by the number of inverts in Germany. Millions, according to him. The State and the SS had reason to be concerned. He said that sexual mores could not be a mere private affair – a view that Hitler himself had once professed. You know how Roehm, the Brown Shirts leader, was a notorious, voracious homosexual? When he was shot, during the night of the long knives, he was in bed with a young man. Party members had long complained about Roehm’s sexuality but Hitler had countered that such matters were personal, private. Himmler’s view could not have been more different, although he would not have said that to Hitler’s face. His position was that because homosexuality is contrary to procreation it results in the demographic destruction of a people.’

>>20415071
>‘In practice there is something in that of course but, from the point of view of the metaphysics of sex, of its deepest significance, it is a very shallow point of view. The drive to reproduction does not constitute the essential meaning of Eros...the great lovers of mankind, Romeo and Juliet, Paris and Helen, even modern, prosaic couples like Edward VIII and Wally Simpson...were they thinking of having children when they fell into each other arms? It is nonsense. It is amazing even a deep thinker like Schopenhauer should have made the mistake of believing that sex was an expression of the biological need to procreate, to perpetuate the species. I have demolished that opinion in my Metaphysics of Sex. I know you have read it. Good.’

>‘I suspect the problem was that Himmler lacked a solid theoretical basis for this subject. He was no deep thinker. Besides, he was a married man, though unhappily so. I think he had children...And there was always something very Bavarian, conventional and petty-bourgeois about him, alas. Even his looks - round head and small, Mongolian eyes - do not argue in his favour. Still, he seemed to know an awful lot about homosexuals. For instance, he said that such people can recognise each other in a meeting amongst hundreds, by a single glance. Proust says something similar in his Recherché du Temps Perdue. Of course Proust was one of them, a homosexual. But how can Himmler have known about that?’

>‘Himmler drew a comparison between Jesuits and gays. Jesuits practice and teach the virtue of deception in order to serve God. Omnia ad Majorem Gloriam Dei is their motto. Their lies are necessary, devoted to the greatest glory of God. The Jesuits are fully aware of their deceptions. Inverts, on the other hand, are not, according to Himmler. They lie without realising they do...Even if they swear on their mother’s life, you cannot trust them, he said. That is very grave, because your word is the strongest pledge you can give, especially for a German, let alone the SS...Not so amongst certain Latin types, of course...they would lie through their teeth happily and would not lose any sleep over it. But you remember Faust? When he realised he had given his word to the devil, he knew he was lost. How very German!’

>‘Himmler stunned his audience by telling us that homosexuality existed even among the SS. Quite extraordinary. His way of dealing with such cases was to have the man in question reduced to the ranks, sent to a concentration camp and later shot “while attempting to escape”. Radical but effective.’

>>20415076
>Himmler was not all that wrong though when he commented on the tendency by homosexuals to boast about all sorts of historical characters belonging to their coterie. Men such as Alexander the Great, Caesar and Frederick II. A self- regarding attitude, as if they were claiming that homosexuality and greatness are synonymous. Rather like the Jews, who attribute almost all the great figures of mankind to their race. Let us say it is a bit of an exaggeration! Anyway, whether those examples are correct or not – Alexander certainly became very indignant when some young boys were offered to him, Plutarch relates - I have discussed the problem elsewhere...There are varieties of homosexuality that are not so easy to explain, certainly...I used to think that it was not connected with a sense of Macht, power, but now I am not so sure. I wonder...Perhaps domination really has something to do with it, at least in the case of the active, butch homosexual.’

>‘Himmler looked dead serious as he spoke but I think he also enjoyed himself hugely in this talk. Afterwards there was a glint in those slanted, oriental eyes of his...It was a ball. Especially when he went on to blast the Catholic Church for her attitude to women and sex in general. Clerical celibacy drew his wrath. He seemed unable to grasp that there might be ascetic and mystical reasons behind priestly celibacy. Such as the Imitatio Christi. Like Hitler, he was too imbued with a type of positivistic and rationalistic anti-clericalism harking back to the Enlightenment. A fatal mistake. In his opinion, the Catholic clergy were homoerotic-homosexual associations in disguise. Perverted and sadistic lot. He went too far, I have to say. You can’t imagine men like St Bernard or St Ignatius of Loyola to have been like that! Celibacy for Himmler was linked to subversion, something almost Bolshevik. Weird...The idea that there might actually be something like a genuine spiritual vocation – a call to what is higher - did not seem to have entered his mind. I have myself met some impressive monks – the real thing. I could never have believed as they did, but I respected them. Himmler could not. Remember, he came from a deeply devout Catholic family. Catholicism has often engendered its greatest enemies. You will not find anything like that in Islam, believe you me. Islam does not demand that men should contradict their basic drives. Islam is realistic...’

>‘That is not to say that the ranks of the clergy have not at all times included numerous homosexuals. Dante, I think, overstates it a little: “You must know that these were all priests and intellectuals, tainted with the same filthy sin” he says, speaking in Hell of the souls dwelling in the circle of sodomites. He even names a notorious Archbishop of Florence. A sodomite so rampant that the Pope had to get him out of Florence and move him to another diocese. So, you see, maybe Himmler had been influenced by Dante, who knows?’

>>20415076
Pretty gay point of view on both accounts. You would have to be real head in the clouds to think there is not even 1% of biological drive between the urge to fuck...that's nonsense.

>>20415096
go read metaphysics of sex

>>20415096
the tldr is that the procreation is just a material manifestation of the union between opposite that happens higher above

>>20414388
>>20414417
He did call himself "supra-fascista" while on trial for reviving fascist movements - a charge he was acquitted of - but knowing the guy's writings I always interpreted that as him saying he was *beyond* fascism, rather than the disingenuous "dude he's saying he's SUPER duper fascist bro!!!1" most retarded libshits say after reading his wiki article. Fuck wikipedia on that note, they completely changed Evola's page after it came out that Steve Bannon was a fan of his, it's an overtly biased hitpiece article now. Used to be pretty impartial the same way Guenon's page still is.

>tranny subhuman posts out of context esoteric Evola quote with the intent of subverting Tradchad domination of /lit/
Get a life.

>>20415196
that makes more sense

I just read the wiki page for Evola and its one giant hit piece. Was he really a nazi nutcase or is it just typical leftist sperging?

>>20415222
Then he's retarded. Supra=//=Super. This is literally a Scholastic distinction.

>>20415307
the counter-initiation is after him

>>20415312
He said he's a supra-fascist. It is incredible how much difficulty people on lit have with this saying. Many are probably disingenuous leftwing turds though.

>>20415307
His ideas are basically the same as those held by ancient aristocrats.

>>20413326
Traditionalism seems similar to occultism and Theosophy, except more intellectually rigorous, but this is just the kind of "scientific spirituality" that all those people were obsessed with back then

>>20413457
>>20413477
>moralfagging

>>20414105
i thought it was a metaphor

>>20415307
Leftist sperging. Here's what it used to be before Evola's legacy got tied to Trump derangement syndrome
https://web.archive.org/web/20150622172019/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

>>20414310
>Isn't this literally just Wine-nigger?
It is. Problem?

>>20415456
Better to moralfag against gays than moralfag for them like sjws desu