/lit/ - Literature

>>23006215
>Is Traditionalism really this mainstream now?
Its ideas are slowly becoming more and more diffused throughout popular culture and right-wing thought, but not necessarily with any citation or discussion of their source.

>Or has it always been like this?
Evola and to a lesser extent Guenon are now household names in rightwing social media but this was not always the case.

>>23006215
>Is Traditionalism really this mainstream now?
Always has been. Who do you think 60s hippies learned about Buddhism from? Mostly popularizers of Guenon.

>>23006215
Traditionalism is just the current trendy name for an age old movement which evolves and even swings from left to right with each iteration of the movement fixating on a different aspects of tradition and adapting it to their needs/the times. Every generation has this movement and as the generation which pushed the movement grows up they start publishing books until the next generation comes along and changes it. The current movement is rather small and will probably have little effect on things to come.

>>23006994
Oh right Alan Watts my favorite islamonazbol

>>23006215
is this just "the past was better!" or are there some hot takes

>>23007018
Hot takes are what defines what ever is the current incarnation of "the past was better" but the hot takes are just blind idealism and in time get reduced cultural fads just as the hippies were reduced to sex, drugs, and rock n roll.

>>23006215
Doesn't this guy write from the perspective of "Hey look, I'm analyzing these dangerous thinkers for you legacy media guys to warn you"?

>>23006215
“Traditionalism” is the coward’s religiosity. It proceeds from that anti-exclusionary, universalistic impulse inherent in the white race which simply cannot fathom the idea of true religion and exclusive revelation because that would have God sending the majority of humankind to eternal torment for its unbelief. They have to find some universal, “primordial” truth at the core of all religions instead, so that all may share in eternal life. They are the SJWs standing outside the gates of Heaven with a placard reading, “No one is illegal!”, because, deny it however want, they ultimately see the human being as an atomised Cartesian subject whose essence is fundamentally distinct from his actual character. But the truth is: people are what they are. Their form, their character, is obviously not “freely chosen” by them, but that does not negate what it is. A daisy which grows in the cracks of the pavement, with poor soil, will grow up to be ugly and deformed. Certainly it is not the daisy’s fault that it is ugly! But it IS ugly, it IS deformed, it IS to be reviled, it IS to be spat and stamped upon, and it IS inferior to the daisy which elegantly grows in fertile ground. God is the farmer who scatters his seed all around, and he does harvest the wheat and burn the chaff, not caring that the chaff did not “freely choose” to be chaff. There is only one true religion. Only one true revelation. And all who are outside of it will burn.

>>23007059
>god does what I want him to do!
zzz

>>23007067
The exact opposite. You are the one who feels warm and fuzzy about the feeling that all religions have it right and that therefore there is no Hell. I am of that old medieval type which knew with 100% certainty the truth of his creed, and would destroy all heretics by burning.

>>23007071
Okay here's a question, in your model do you think there is any possibility that you are the chaff? Or is it an absolute certainty to you that you are the wheat here?

>>23007074
I am what I am. I am what I am destined to be. There is no free will.

For he saith to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, “Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, “Why hast thou made me thus?” Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

>>23007085
Do you think there is any chance you will be condemned to eternal damnation?

>>23007091
Either he is what he is and that may very well be chaff destined to burn in hell or he is larping and you won't get a straight answer out of him.

>>23007091
Statistically speaking, yes, most people go to hell. But obviously I strive to be the vessel that was made for honour, not dishonour.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leaders to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

>>23007109
Leadeth* not leaders

>>23007109
>But obviously I strive to be the vessel that was made for honour, not dishonour.
I don't think that's obvious given the quote here >>23007085,
how can you understand what he considers honourable or dishonourable if his mercy and compassion appear to us as totally arbitrary and undecipherable.

>>23007125
>how can you understand what he considers honourable or dishonourable

Revelation and natural law.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” And he said unto him, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” He saith unto him, “Which?” Jesus said, “Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

>>23007059
Look I get that the daisy might not be like aesthetically pleasing or whatever but why would you step on it? Why would you spit on it LMAO? Like imagine some guy on the sidewalk all pissed off, stomping and spitting on some daisy growing up through the cracks. He would look insane, like some sort of day-drinking type.

>>23007175
You cant really personify or humanize god and his intentions without getting the image of a kid pulling legs off of bugs

>>23007174
So we are back to the convienent truth that god just works in a way that he will reinforce your already existing beliefs and morals.

>>23006215
Sedgwick is like the only serious academic writing about them. Maybe a few journalists that write about Steve Bannon's and Dugin's ideological influences. Other than that the movement isn't popular at all.

>>23007059
What motivates many people to reject your anti-universalistic worldview about all non-Christians going to hell is not necessarily emotion but in many cases it results from dissatisfaction with the inherent logical contradictions that characterize your worldview. To start off with, God cannot be perfect or all loving if he creates beings, deceives them, and then damns them to eternal hell for helplessly falling victim to the deception which God himself caused. You believe in a sick and twisted, demiurge-like conception of God that is just the product of Jewish tribal neurosis.

>>23007011
>Oh right Alan Watts my favorite islamonazbol
He retroactively refutes progressivism in ‘The Supreme Identity’

>>23007259
The hippies largely were libertarian and not remotely progressive, all about family and community and going back to small community agrarian life without big government infringing or impeding that life. Time has reduced them to their effect on popular culture and simplified their political stance to the bipolar left vs right dichotomy. That anon is a moron who views the world through memes.

>>23006215
I remember seeing it on Bookdepository as a preorder before they designed the cover
Nice that you reminded me to get it now

>>23007189
>works in a way that he will reinforce your already existing beliefs and morals.
Ultimately, yes. The Chosen Ones believe because they are chosen, because they are given ears. The believers are not chosen; the chosen are believers.

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
>>23007252
O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, “Why hast thou made me thus?” Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Once you realise that the view of human beings as essentially just pure Cartesian observers is false you will see how it implies absolutely no contradiction with God’s love to create a dishonourable creature. If God creates someone who deserves to be punished, and punishes him, he has not transgressed whatsoever against that person. That is because there is no extra Cartesian “essence” to the person’s individuality. Character is essence. What you are is not merely that you are conscious, but HOW you are conscious. You are not the thing that perceives your thoughts, habits, and inclinations. You are your thoughts, habits, and inclinations. A twisted, demonic serial killer is not an innocent Cartesian observer observing the life of a serial killer. No. He is that serial killer. He did not choose to be one, because there is no free will. But he just is one. And he deserves to be punished because of what he is, not because of what he would choose to be. There is no such thing as will detached from nature. There is no pure rational will-in—a-vacuum. You are what you are. The wicked are wicked, and God justly punishes them, even though he created them that way.

>>23007385
>yeah so my ideology is that im the chosen one who will be saved and anyone who disagrees with me is a sheep who will burn for all eternity, i know that seems pretty convenient for me but sometimes god just hooks it up like that. anyways heres a bible quote

>>23007420
I am the sheep, not the unbelievers. He said His sheep hear His voice. That implies the chosen people will be the ones who will accept his message. It’s not a matter of free will. It’s a matter of who is called. Free will is a nonsensical concept with no content.

>>23007385
The point you made about the so-called Cartesian observer is actually irrelevant to the point that I am making. You said in the above passage “God creates someone who deserves to be punished”, do they deserve to be punished because of something they did totally independent of God? No, in your conception he would have created them that way, which is what denotes them as deserving of eternal hell. Even if this isn’t a “transgression” against an otherwise pure being, it still involves God creating someone of a flawed nature FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of damning them to eternal hell. This is an act of pure malevolence and evil which you cannot affirm as the actions of God who is ostensibly perfect, just and all-loving without falling into an obvious contradiction. It doesn’t work logically speaking to say that their debased nature justifies God’s punishment of them because that nature doesn’t exist until God creates it, so you can’t pin the responsibility on those beings but it goes back to God who would be bringing certain beings into existence just so he can inflict pain and torment on them which is evil.

Malevolence is mutually exclusive with both perfection and all-loving so you are violating the law of non-contradiction by affirming two contradictory and mutually-exclusive things about God. It’s philosophically unserious.

>>23007259
>>23007372
from what else /lit/ tells me, Guenon would have viewed Buddhism very poorly since it disagrees with orthodox priestly Hinduism, so I am quite surprised at the suggestion that Guenon popularized Buddhism to Westerners... it's obviously a ridiculous ahistorical claim but goes to show that tardlarpers are wrong about almost everything anyway

>>23007051
Yes. He's a scholar of Islam and got introduced to Guenon via it, which is how he got to actual thinkers like Evola, Schuon, etc.

>>23007465
I have no idea about Guenon but even if he hated Buddhism he could still have introduced it to the hippies, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you can just take what is off use and ignore the rest.

>>23007467
>Evola and Schuon are real thinkers and Guenon isn’t
lol

>>23007487
There was a whole entire generation or two of non-guenonist theosophists and other western intellectuals exposed to Buddhism going back to the 1800s. Schopenhauer was writing about it. I know everything passes through Guenon for teenagers with /pol/ reading lists but other people have written books

>>23007487
Forgot to say that hippies weren't Buddhist as a whole, Hinduism and Rastafarian (which is pretty much trad larp Christianity) were also big and the movement compatible with any religion.

>>23007497
Sure, ultimately Ravi Shankar and various musicians going off to study with monks probaby had more to do with it all just as some bloggers have more to do with the current trad larp movement than any philosopher.

what is the idealogy, i like the tree picture

>>23007011
>Politically, Watts was a man of the right. In his youth, he was a follower of the mysterious Serbian guru and operator Dimitrije Mitrinovic, an advocate of such quasi-fascistic ideas as Guild Socialism, Social Credit, and European Unity (as long as it was not Hitler who was doing the unifying). Watts also claimed that he returned to Anglicanism largely out of conservative motives, searching for tradition and security in a world in disarray. In The Supreme Identity, he offers an absolutely withering Traditionalist critique of the basic premises of liberalism.
https://counter-currents.com/2015/01/alan-watts-at-100/

Some good essays here:
https://counter-currents.com/2024/01/remembering-alan-watts-9/
particularly

>>23007464
The point about Cartesian philosophy is directly relevant to this conversation. You don’t even realise that all of your thoughts and intuitions on this matter derive from your firmly held (though perhaps subconscious) belief in the Cartesian subject.

You declare it to be an act of evil to create a man deserving of punishment, and then to punish him. That is because you have not fully absorbed the doctrine that essence is character. There is no real you outside of your character, which sits as a mere observer to your habits, thoughts, desires, and inclinations. No; you are what you are. A murderer is not an innocent Cartesian ego who happens to have gotten unlucky and to have landed himself in the mind of that murderer, perceiving his thoughts and actions. No; the murderer is the thoughts and actions.

That is why you cannot say things like, “if I were that person...” You are not that person and you never could be. When you say that, you are presupposing that you are a simple unit of consciousness which can hop around from person to person and inhabit different people. It does not exist.

The false doctrine of free will also relies on the presupposition of the Cartesian subject. An act of free will is when the Cartesian ego turns from passively observing the mind it is inhabiting into actively steering its actions.

But the Cartesian ego does not exist. Analysed to the core, it disappears, like sand through the fingers.

Thus when God creates the wicked, he has not imprisoned millions of innocent Cartesian egos within wicked minds. No. He has created the wicked. And they are wicked, because that is the form of their soul. It is no more foreign to them than the whiteness of a flower is foreign to the flower. The flower simply is white. The wicked simply are wicked. And the wicked deserve to be punished, because that is what their form demands from a just God.

Now there are reasons for why God creates the wicked. But, so far nobody but I have discovered them. My doctrine is so unique in the history of thought that, were I here to reveal it, it would be immediately recognisable, and my future disciples could easily trace its first enunciation to this ignoble website. That is why I will keep it secret for now. (I should say, however, that this doctrine was not entirely discovered by me, but was revealed first to my family member, who shared it with me. God later killed him because he had not the philosophical wherewithal to express it cogently. But as I have a Master’s degree in philosophy, and have tact for clear expression of arguments, God has entrusted it to me to dedicate my life’s work to the working out of this philosophy).

>>23007562
>counter-currents
lol. Watts was as much a liberal as he was a conservative and his return to Anglicanism was not exactly long lived or for such simplistic reasons ultimately resulting in his return to Buddhism. If that site actually gets people to read Watts in any depth it would likely result in a wonderful backfire. Counter-currents is pretty much everything Watts felt was wrong with conservatism and religion.

>>23007569
>There is no real you outside of your character, which sits as a mere observer to your habits, thoughts, desires, and inclinations.
This is easy to refute, because without there being a separate abiding awareness there is no way that all of the above can plausibly be united in one continuum of experience. That awareness remains constant and unwavering while thoughts, desires, inclinations etc waver in and out of our experience shows that awareness is something distinct from them. If there wasn’t this awareness you would have no way of knowing when one thought or sensation was replaced by another, since the individual thoughts cannot be cognizant of their own absence and replacement by another.

>You declare it to be an act of evil to create a man deserving of punishment, and then to punish him. That is because you have not fully absorbed the doctrine that essence is character.
No, that’s a strawman fallacy and it also shows that you failed to understand my argument. What you don’t realize is that my point remains true even if someone accepts your claim that essence is character, thus you are engaging in the strawman fallacy by saying that my argument depends on the rejection of the claim that essence is nature (that’s a strawman because it doesn’t).

>Thus when God creates the wicked, he has not imprisoned millions of innocent Cartesian egos within wicked minds.
That you would write this shows that you didn’t understand my post, since I specified exactly for you why God’s actions would still be evil even if he WAS NOT transgressing against some cartesian subjects. I will repeat the argument again for you in even more clear terms

1) God has foreknowledge of his creation
2) God knows that some of his creation will be so debased and flawed so as to have no other possible path after death aside from burning in eternal hell (in your model)
3) By creating such a being, God is creating them so that they will be tortured eternally
4) God could choose not to create them, or to create them with a chance of redemption, but he isn’t for a certain class of beings
5) Therefore, God is choosing to bring beings into existence just so he can inflict completely unnecessary eternal pain and suffering on them
6) Creating beings so you can inflict eternal pain and suffering on them when it is unnecessary to do so is evil and malicious.

NONE of the above listed points requires either believing in Cartesian subjects or rejecting that essence = character, regardless of what position you adopt the above points remain true.

>But, so far nobody but I have discovered them.
I doubt that you have a serious answer that solves the logical conclusion that I outlined above.

>>23007717
"liberalism" doesn't allow itself a usable past so all its thinkers can be posthumously baptized as "conservative;" i would assume that's how he is being read there

>>23006215
Sedgwick is a historian who in part specializes in traditionalism. He's very respected in his field (history). He's not a traditionalist.

>>23007569
> My doctrine is so unique in the history of thought that, were I here to reveal it, it would be immediately recognisable, and my future disciples could easily trace its first enunciation to this ignoble website.

Well, one cannot be an enemy of the truth, and the truth is that you are a 4chan anon. If your doctrine is so shocking that it is remembered and eventually traced to here, you have to own that instead of denying what you are.

>>23006215
Sacred geometry and hermeticism has become pretty popular on tiktok, more towards the conspiracy theory angle.

>>23007773
Watts was not a liberal; as much a liberal as a conservative meaning he was not either because the two are mutually exclusive. They ignore context and cherry pick counting on most of their readership never going to sources other than the ones provided because those other sources are all liberal propaganda, don't you know?

>>23007875
Protagonist syndrome en masse

>>23006215
Historical development being consciously and maliciously rolled back, Year Zero style.

>>23007059
Christianity is not exclusionary, not in origin, and not in practice. Historically it's been foisted on as many people as possible, and you have to be coping pretty hard to characterize it otherwise.
Moreover, 'traditionalism' proceeds directly from the (Judeo-)Christian occult tradition, so it makes perfect sense why it wouldn't abandon the universalist values of the Walmart religion from which it was born.

>>23007059
The heaven/hell notion in the manner you are describing it isn't a part of perennialism to begin with, so actually everything you said is made up by you because you are the one who cannot comprehend.

>>23007071
>would burn heretics for jayzus
>but not if I'd go to jail!
PUSSY FAGGOT FAKER ALERT

>>23007875
>Sacred geometry has become pretty popular on tiktok

>>23008375
Christianity teaches that the chosen ones, or the elect, are taken out from the mass of humankind to bask in God’s eternal glory, whereas the mass of humankind will go to hell. That is the definition of exclusionary.

>>23007762
> Creating beings so you can inflict eternal pain and suffering on them when it is unnecessary to do so is evil and malicious.
This only works if you already presuppose everyone is innocent at core. When you fully absorb the doctrine that there js no free will and that essence is character there is nothing evil or malevolent about this.

>>23009336
Only one school does that, Christianity wouldn't proselytize so hard if they all believed that.

That's such a tendentious reading too, what happened to 'with God, all things are possible'

>>23009356
It does not, even if they are fully evil, God created them that way deliberately. And actually, lots of determinists use determinism to argue there is no such thing as evil and therefore even criminal punishments don't make sense, since it's not like the criminals could have done differently. Very strange to take the view that there is no free will to argue for eternal hell.

I don't know if you're the same guy, if you are, you said you had a shocking doctrine for why God would choose to create hellbound souls, render a service to the truth and post it.

>>23007059
>all who are outside of it will burn

Just dropping by this thread to lament the fact that an interesting fellow once asked to learn from me but he didn't follow through. Now that I need likeminded people who are well versed in Traditionalism and ancient spirituality, I have no one to call on. And he also probably has nothing to do now, whereas if he had been learning and staying in contact with me all along, we would've had the opportunity to make something happen together.
Life is cruel.

No. It’s rather that occultic, pagan, and overtly Luciferian delusion is mainstream now and Traditionalism most definitely is in that club.

>>23009848
>God created them that way deliberately
Why is that bad
>And actually, lots of determinists use determinism to argue there is no such thing as evil and therefore even criminal punishments don't make sense, since it's not like the criminals could have done differently
Because they still see the human being as an innocent Cartesian subject that is "observing" rather than living out his life. Once you abandon that you realise that people just are what they are. An evil person does not "freely choose" to be evil, but he is evil, because his soul is deformed, and that's why he deserves punishment.

>>23006215
This completely fucking soulless thread should demonstrate that there's A LOT of work to be done in properly establishing Traditionalism. There have been huge breakthroughs but the quality of understanding has been broadly speaking diluted. Hopefully things improve with time.

>>23010708
>with time
The only thing zoomers and alfies are going to arrive at is, at best, traditionalism be rizz no cap

>>23010714
That won't be a problem if in addition to this there is also an intellectual elite that become acknowledged authorities. Then we'll have a real starting point as a society.

>>23009356
>This only works if you already presuppose everyone is innocent at core.
That's not true, there is a logical problem in your understanding which I have repeatedly pointed out to you, but you seem to struggle to understand it even though it's not complicated. That masters degree in philosophy doesn't seem to have done you any good.

Even if we grant that NOBODY is innocent at core, the fact of a class of beings being irredeemably evil/corrupt can only be argued to justify their punishment.... ONCE THEY EXIST! When they don't yet exist they don't yet have any evil nature which justifies their punishment. You are confused about this and are trying to justify things in a backward manner by saying their evil nature absolves God of fault but this could only be so if God wasn't what made them that way.

Since God doesn't have to create irredeemable beings, God is choosing to do so. Since God is willingly creating beings that so he can inflict endless pain and torture upon them when there is no necessity to do so, this an act of pure and malicious evil, more redolent of Satan than God.

The only way that God would be absolved of responsibility would be if the evil being existed eternally and was not created by God, but this isn't allowed in Christian theology, so their very existence at all as something irredeemably bad becomes God's fault, since God choose to unnecessarily create beings so he could torture them forever it makes God into an evil mastermind torturer, like the haemonculi in WH40k. Ultimately this vision of God is a product of Jewish neurosis about their tribal identity and in-group vs out-group; Christians who lack spiritual insight imbibe this Jewish attitude unknowingly.

>>23010699
>Why is that bad
Because it's evil to create a living being for the purpose of inflicting eternal pain and suffering on that being, when there is no necessity to do so.

>but they are evil so it's justified
Wrong! Their evil can only justify their punishment once it has been created. But BEFORE it has been created, there are the options of not bringing such a being into existence, and bringing it into existence, compared to simply not creating such a being, intentionally creating one so they can be tortured forever is an evil because it's deliberately inflicting cruel and unnecessary punishment on a living without that being having any chance at redemption.

>>23010787
>Since God doesn't have to create irredeemable beings, God is choosing to do so. Since God is willingly creating beings that so he can inflict endless pain and torture upon them when there is no necessity to do so, this an act of pure and malicious evil, more redolent of Satan than God.
Why? What makes it wrong? I understand you have an intuition, but I don't have it. So explain.

>>23010803
>Why? What makes it wrong?
Because at the moment before the evil being exists, there is no possible justification for their creation and resulting eternal punishment. It's logically absurd to claim that their evil justifies this before that evil itself has been created, it's putting the cart before the horse.

Because there is no possible justification for their creation as such, their unnecessary creation and ensuing endless torture is an act of pure malevolence and evil; the non-option would be simply to not create them, or to create them with a chance of redemption, or to have heaven be based on someone's actions vs joining a specific sub-type of Christianity which they may never hear about or encounter in their life.

>>23010841
*the non-evil option would be simply to

>>23010708
>Hopefully things improve with time
i thought your philosophy was that eveything is getting worse and has been for forty thousand years

>>23006215
/pol/ is about 5-10 years upstream of mainstream culture

>>23010868
>i thought your philosophy was that eveything is getting worse and has been for forty thousand years
The idea that we are living in a Yuga associated with spiritual decline in general is not at all incompatible with people achieving a certain degree of progress in knowledge or understanding. The Yuga is a macro-level phenomenon, that doesn't mean that there cannot be smaller micro instances of things which go against the general trend.

>>23010868
Clearly you skipped the part about cyclical time in your Traditionalist reading, then.

>>23010870
yeah the nearly verbatim, if not for minor santizing, political tirades against "wokeism" in the universities and so forth are just the same rants against cultural marxism from c. 2011; truly one of the few points on which /pol/ is "always right", or at least vintage /pol/, that western universities are ideologically dominated by a far left vanguard, although very recently and much more egregiously, these same universities have gotten themselves into hot water for being so far left that they become anti-zionist, which is a red line for some strange reason but who knows?...surely not anyone allowed to be a public figure! I don't think /pol/ has had an insight into anything since Trump-ism, which ruined this website, and also the deep plunge into esoteric theological escapism that has followed it as a pseudo-intellectual cocoon is a vicious, russian-style neutering of dissidence by anti-fascist conservative authoritarian forces

>>23010901
>a macro-level phenomenon, that doesn't mean that there cannot be smaller micro instances of things which go against the general trend.
you don't need polemic seethecore literature to get that insight
>>23010902
>cyclical time
the time scales are kalpas, eons, yugas, eras, so it is immaterial to anything which is material to you

>>23010928
>the time scales are kalpas, eons, yugas, eras, so it is immaterial to anything which is material to you
That's not true, you are exclusively looking at the biggest cycles here. There are various shorter cycles as well. Like the Greco-Roman cycle, the Western cycle, etc.

>>23010917
>I don't think /pol/ has had an insight into anything since Trump-ism
100% about the meme flu and the jew jab, retard.

>>23010990
I am looking at the life cycle, the one that matters. Everything else you've mentioned is some form of historiography

>>23010998
yeah thanks for proving my point

>>23010841
>>23010845
You seek for a morally justifiable reason for the creation of the wicked. Well, that will depend on your background assumptions about morality. I don't see the world from the typical utilitarian perspective which values pleasure and decries pain. Pain and pleasure are not morally significant of themselves in my worldview, but matter only insofar as they contribute to the general context in which an aesthetically excellent human life is made possible. If ten criminals are needed so that one good man may, by overcoming them, discover his own bravery, their creation is justified. It is not even that they are created for the brave man's benefit. Rather, each play out essential roles in the drama of creation, creating a context in which the human spirit can attain its peak of self-discovery and self-expression.

>>23011003
>historiography
Yeah. The life cycle of human civilisation.

>>23011089
so as i said, it's an immaterial time scale

>>23011070
> Well, that will depend on your background assumptions about morality. I don't see the world from the typical utilitarian perspective which values pleasure and decries pain.
That doesn’t solve the problem and the logical contradiction remains in your worldview. Even if you say that the presence of the bad actor has some additional role to play in the cosmic drama, God creating the evil being and condemning it to eternal torture when he has the option not to is still malicious and evil, because he could just as easily create a flawed being who has the same role to play in the cosmic drama, but who at least has a chance of redemption and going to heaven; by choosing to deny this to someone through no fault of their own (their evil cannot be this same fault justifying this before they have been created), God would be inflicting cruel, unjustified, sadistic and unnecessary punishment. You believe in an all-powerful demon or Satan and not God.

>>23010787
>Ultimately this vision of God is a product of Jewish neurosis about their tribal identity and in-group vs out-group
>>23007252
>You believe in a sick and twisted, demiurge-like conception of God that is just the product of Jewish tribal neurosis.
You're a braindead retard and clearly are not at all familiar with Scripture.

>>23011119
> You're a braindead retard and clearly are not at all familiar with Scripture.
Neither of those are arguments that address the logical points which I made.

>>23011010
go get your booster, bitch

>>23011125
Okay I will, Im glad not to be a chu-ACK!!

>>23011133
checked and kek'd

>>23011124
"Calvinism is le Jewish" is a retarded faggot talking point. Reformed theology is the result of a braindead exegesis of Romans 9, it has nothing to do with your moronic psychoanalysis.

>>23011152
> Calvinism is le Jewish" is a retarded faggot talking point.
That’s not my point, it’s an observation that was made posterior to my main logical argument (the main point) about the inherent logical contradiction in your worldview, but the argument itself about how your worldview and understanding of God is contradictory doesn’t depend on the psychoanalysis.

>>23011149
Twitter anecdotes from a jewish blue check?

>>23011164
Your entire argument is against Calvinist monergism and double predestination, and it is completely useless against churches with a synergistic soteriology.

>>23011125
Even if I wanted to have a nuanced discussion on this, you are the exact sort of retard whose attitude toward personal and public health in the first place justified the government/corporate employer/regulatory decision to force everyone to take experimental vaccines, because otherwise there would have been mass graves in every amerishart city and town, filled with the sedentary, the alcoholic, the obese, the drug-addicted, the diabetic, etc. That some handful of healthy people were killed so the unhealthy could be spared—perhaps that is a crime to a Nietzschean, an atheist, or a eugenicist, but I suspect this is unlikely as given your other considerations about defending contemporary /pol/ of all things you are probably the typical yeshua-first christlarper who have infested the board as of late.

>>23007059
Yeah, and to give another take, traditionalism basically attracts feminine alpha types, who can't dude-bro stuff like engineering, fast cars, maths, industry, natural science, boxing, etc. it scares and overwhelms them, I wouldn't be surprised these guys have a hate boner for Wagner too, they can't stand evolution either, it reminds them they would die in the forest.

>>23011111
>NOOOOOOOO MUH SUFFERIGN MUH SUFFERING MAKE IT STOP
>GOD YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!! STOP THE SUFFERING!!!!
>BE. A. DECENT. HUMAN. BEING.
>NOOOOOOOOOOO

Get over it you pussy. Embrace life. Embrace your fate. Suffering allows us to be great. God is wiser than you.

>>23011197
Not an argument. You believe in a logically contradictory idea of God, more like a caricature of God.

>>23006215
>Is Traditionalism really this mainstream now
No, word has been just accepted into popular language, where it's raped thoroughly.
I see people claiming strange stuff where they say that Muslims can't be trad, which is funny thinking philosophical school was started by a sufi. The word trad in most popular usage is something surrounding submissive virgin brides. From same people do not see chastity as a virtue, mind you. Only as a fetish.

>>23011177
I already said that my argument was only directed towards Christians who believe that God creates irredeemably flawed/evil beings and condemns them to eternal torture; it was not directed against people who think that God gives all beings a chance at redemption.

However, in synergistic versions of Christian theology which still holds that non-Christians including pagans in 5000 BC automatically go to hell forever then you still have the same logical contradiction present. The only way to escape the contradiction is if you accept that righteous non-Christians eventually go to heaven after some time in purgatory or if you believe as the Eastern Orthodox do that Jesus eventually comes down and saves everyone still in hell.

>>23011096
What's actually immaterial is your reasoning, which is nowhere to be found. I already told you that you are only considering the largest scale cycles, which is why you're completely blind to differences on the lower scale - a scale that is just as valid and real as any other. You then claimed that you are "looking at the life cycle, the one that matters". It is amusing that this life cycle is apparently not the life cycle of human beings, of human civilisation, of tradition, of human mores and behaviours, or of society. Time has no meaning other than for living beings. What the Four Ages mean for us matters because they impact our lives, and the life cycle of actual human civilisation ("historiography" as you said) also matters for the exact same reason.

>>23011307
>applying geological time scales to semi-mythical epochs of human history matters to you, because it just does, okay
if we've only ever been in the age of shitquarius since time immemorial and it's only getting shittier that's just a mild form of world-denying nihilism—i suppose you could do worse were you insisting there is a place we can go other than here instead of it being a loop, but still, it warrants a shrug from anyone with a strong constitution

>>23009992
>MUH PRIMORDIAL TRADITION KOOL AID
>HEAVEN ACCEPTS EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY STREET SHITTING HINDUS
>NO ONE IS ILLEGAL!

>>23011152
>Reformed theology is the result of a braindead exegesis of Romans 9,
It's not a braindead exegesis. It's just the plain reading of Scripture.

Jesus Christ
>But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Saint Paul
>For he saith to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, “Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, “Why hast thou made me thus?” Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


It's obvious what these quotes mean. The vast majority are subhuman, made for dishonour, made that way for God's purposes.

>>23011368
The fact that you identify this as a form of "nihilism" suggests that you're the one with the weak constitution. Apparently if things ever do get hard, that's enough for you to throw in the towel and write off an entire epoch as irrelevant and meaningless.
Another day in the life of a Nietzschecel? Then again, I wager even Nietzsche would be disgusted by your line of argument.

>>23006215
>the “sacred order” tradition
Vile modernism. Why the tree, symbol of wild freedom?

>>23011816
>actually Nietzsche would be disgusted by you calling religious larpers nihilists
lol

>>23012331
>actually Nietzsche would be disgusted by you calling religious larpers nihilists...
>... if you call them nihilist because they have a higher tolerance for difficulty and can discover meaning in more dire condition than you
lol indeed

>>23012352
>they have a higher tolerance for difficulty and can discover meaning in more dire condition than you
Who is they? Larpers? They don't, not if they are whining that everything is getting worse and worse and all of recorded human history has taken place in a dark age. Now for me, for any free spirit, it was Tuesday

>>23012424
You must truly be the freest of spirits, since you seem to be totally free of memory about what you yourself have said. You are the one who implied that if things get worse, meaning is lost (hence why you termed the doctrine of cycles "nihilist"). In fact, Nietzsche takes a totally different position to you by affirming the Eternal Return, which has strong parallels with the Traditionalist attitude to the cycle doctrine. (You) are the small souled, all-too-human LARPer, anon.

>>23010902
nothing gets better in the kali yuga dingus

>>23012455
A genuinely moronic statement. Observing the progress of medicine in the past century is an obvious refutation of what you just said. The refutation can be taken far further, of course, but this much is already sufficient to refute you.

being a tradfag has peaked, you want to be a futurist/accelerationist now

>>23012445
>You are the one who implied that if things get worse, meaning is lost
no, my point was that fantasizing about a spiritual golden age and enshrining it in "metaphysics" in opposition to this "fallen" world you live in is christianity / nihilism by other means

>>23012536
The doctrine of the ages far predates Christianity and the assumption that a sentimentalist or emotionalist attitude has to be taken in the face of objective facts is indicative of your own nihilistic prejudices. A true man is a true man regardless of whether he lives in a golden age or a dark age. The true meaning of things lies within. This is also why I mentioned the doctrine of the Eternal Return - you do not seek to grasp at superior or inferior material outcomes, instead you stick with the spirit within because that is what is most valuable. A wise man would not wish to live in a golden age any more than in a dark age, because this itself demonstrates that he is decentred and fractured.

>>23012599
>the assumption that a sentimentalist or emotionalist attitude
yeah that's entirely what goes on here, you aren't genuinely enlightened or whatever the fuck you are going on about simply by repeating that we live in a dark age but you are le strong keyboard kshatriya because you embody higher spiritual principles
and the eternal return isn't about restoration of a clerical aristocracy after 60 gorillion kalpas it is about the eternity of your actions, that you should act with a sense of fate when you throw dice, that you would do this over and over again if you were cursed to do so (because you are), that you would affirm life even under the most hostile conditions—meanwhile our tardlarper seethes that he is living in the dark ages because the Vedas aren't being recited, again i ask what use is this framing for someone who doesn't feel so ill?

>>23012655
Good job regurgitating what I said but with your cognitive dissonance and inaccuracies mixed in. Very impressive.

>>23012823
>cognitive dissonance
yeah, when you think you're in a dark age because the evil demons are keeping the spiritual aristocrats down, if the evil demons are so powerful you are just a loser, not an aristocrat

>>23007059
God I hate Calvinists

>>23007085
>christian
>does not believe in free will
impressive trolling

>>23012961
He's not trolling unfortunately, he is just a Calvinist

>>23012515
why not both? moldbuggian absolutist techno-monarchy in space is the future.

>>23006215
Is this book any good?
>But Traditionalism has applied to darker causes: from the election of Donald Trump
Makes it seem like either this guy has found some actual secret traditionalist kabal (in which case he would presumably be dead for trying to publish this) or he is literally talking about the "impact" of some twitter, 4chan, and blog tards making "return to tradition" memes and on rare occasions talking about Evola

>>23011187
>blah blah blah I'm a faggot
kill yourself

>>23012961
>>23012968
Free will and an all-powerful God cannot coexist, they are contradictory concepts.

>>23013058
your god wants you to put the herd first, you sinned by not getting the jab

>>23011272
>Eastern Orthodox do that Jesus eventually comes down and saves everyone still in hell.
Wait, do they really?

>>23013486
No he’s full of shit. The closest thing would be Apocatastasis. It’s not a commonly held belief.

>>23006215
Guenon and Eliade have been pretty much everywhere in local libraries where I live for a long time, nobody cares

>>23013052
I've seen a couple interviews with Sedgwick and his angle is a very dry academic chronology of traditionalism, eg the biographies of the main thinkers, it's relationship with earlier movements like theosophy, occultism etc. He never really engages with the philosophy itself (and seems generally very ignorant of it's basic concepts imho).

But he is a boomer intellectual at a university so he is drawn to the usual interpretations you mentioned. Although I don't think he does this in bad faith, just out of habit and unoriginality.

>>23012928
All you've got left is to falsify the things I say, deliberately misconstrue and misrepresent (may God help you if it's not deliberate), and seethe. The real loser is (You).
>>23013911
>Although I don't think he does this in bad faith, just out of habit and unoriginality.
That's hilarious IMO.

>>23006215
Charles is into it. I liked Sam Kriss writing about him:

>I started to get deeply annoyed by the way some people would jeer at our stupid pageantry. Americans, mostly, desperate to point at a political system more larpy and lunatic than their own. Look at the Brits, still ruled by hereditary aristocrats—isn’t it pathetic? Like some fantasy kingdom. Like Game of Thrones. Isn’t it out of date? The Nairn-Anderson thesis repeated as a playground insult: you guys are lame. Well, what would you prefer? Should we have some crap president in a suit and tie, notionally elected but basically appointed by the IMF? Should we become another boring republic in a continent full of boring republics? Should we sell off Buckingham Palace to some grasping property developers, so it can be turned into luxury apartments, auctioned off in Singapore? Should we break down that hideous hat, so its three thousand diamonds can adorn a Saudi oil billionaire’s hubcaps instead? Would that be democratic? Would that be more normal? Would that radically change our political situation, or would it make things even more the same than they already are?

>The monarchy does serve one very useful function: it reminds us that politics is not rational. In Britain, we are ruled by the descendants of an illiterate Viking warlord who came to this island one thousand years ago to massacre its people. When William I had his coronation at Westminster Abbey in 1066, his soldiers mistook the acclamation for a riot, and immediately set about burning and looting half the city. We can’t delude ourselves that the state exists for our benefit; it exists to serve a cabal of weird, leathery perverts, and so do we. We know that sovereignty is made of lizards and black magic. (Charles knows this too, by the way; he wrote an entire book about it. The only difference is that he likes Jung and Guénon and thinks this is all actually good.) The royals might not actually govern our lives any more—that role has been passed on to the international bond markets, just like everywhere else—but they let us see power as it really is: arbitrary, meaningless, and absurd. They remind us that all our dry fiddling around with interest rates sits at the end of a very long chain, stretching back to the first man who smashed another man’s head in with a rock.

>It’s the people in republics who live in a fantasy-world. You’re still acting out some eighteenth-century vision of democracy. You still imagine that you’re governed by consent, and not simply ruled. You still pretend—how quaint—to be modern.
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/in-englands-dreaming

>>23013116
The jab isn't good for the herd, dumbfuck. The only good it did was weeding out those with a predisposition toward a blind adherence to governmental authority.

>>23007059
Based cryptosatanist

>>23014500
immunizing the greatest number of people, even if it kills a small number of healthy people, is herdmaxxing and therefore extremely christian, as is blind adherence to authority

>>23006215
as with all movements, most people are larping and like the aesthetic.
>have met multiple "trad" women that are either near-30 and not married or are younger and have tattoos
LIES... DECEPTIONS... TOOLS OF THE EMPIRE