/lit/ - Literature

you got trolled, no-one takes this guy seriously, except maybe Americans, but no-one takes these seriously, either.

>>5273715

The appeal is reading someone discuss a very alien grand narrative, that (supposedly) a great deal of people used to believe. That, and a significant part of the Dark Enlightenment fad follows him like a prophet.

>>5273715
>he thinks Evola is more looney than the german idealists
Atleast he isn't euro-centric scum, you bigot.

he is a 4chan meme joke, like rand was before him, and ron paul was before rand

>>5273721

but he was italian you fuck

>>5273721
why do people like to shit on america so bad?

seriously, whats a better country to live in?
arab invaded europe?

just because everyone else ruined their own doesn't mean you guys have to ruin ours.

No worse than Nietzsche or Stirner and other garbage.

>>5273962
You don't even know the basics of German Idealism you retard

>Atleast he isn't euro-centric scum, you bigot.

Wow much sarcasm!! Fuck off back to /pol/

>>5274057

One could compare their interpretations of sacred history, their relations to revolutionary social movements in their time period, how they related to Christianity. Not an entirely worthless statement.

>>5273715
In the world of the colourblind, red no longer exists.
The sacred is something perceived, therefore it has an existence.

What kind of existence isn't the concern here. If you respect your own perceptions, you will seek out what you value. Evola dove deep.

>>5273715
He looks someone just farted directly into his face.
Someone just grabbed him and held him down while another person dropped their pants and released a blast of flatulence gas directly into his face. And now Evola is struggling not to cry.

That is the sort of person who is attracted to Evola. They are people who feel that the past couple hundred years are nothing but a personal insult against them--a farted directly into their face--and they're determined to cry about it forever.

>>5274277
It's just so lame. So lame. I'm very amused.

>>5273977

This is simply not true.

Read "Nietzsche and Philosophy" and "Specters of Marx" for a latter apreciation of their philosophy and the positive influence they have had on the development of philosophical discourse.

Evola is trash though, leagues below to thinkers even like Spengler, who at least advanced areas like philosophy of history.

>>5274277

would lol again

>>5273715
>the second he starts talking about two natures, magic, and divine kingship I'm ready to throw this shit in the garbage.

Why does shit like that make you mad?

>>5273715
>What is the appeal?
Generally speaking, there is no appeal. He's appealing to a minority of the alienated kids on 4chan because he negates pretty much everything about contemporary western society.

op samefagging the entire thread for personal reasons

>>5274298
>Philosophy of history
>Not instant trash

Sure anon, theoretical history is the way.

Evola is as major as Crowley as a figure in the modern occult. He seriously investigated mystery cults instead of trying to make his own new ones. He has many heirs but few in philosophy. His understanding of Yoga. alchemy and Plato's Republic is a master synthesis of hermetic philosophy that the mainstream would like to ignore.

Where'd Evola Kid go

>>5273967
America is still worse with regards to multiculturalism. You even have foreign towns.

>>5274298
>he is of no use for the international revolutionary movement
>therefore he is "trash"

I'm sure he would be glad.

What ever happened to Evolakid the usurper?

>>5273967
>implying Americans haven't already ruined America

>>5276947
>>5276578
>tripfag fan
How low can you get?

>>5276947
He's off trolling West Africa. At least I think it was him.

i haven't read evola but i see the appeal, i'm at a point now where i'd rather read something interesting than something right

>>5276947
>>5276578

you should filter tripfags at every step

they offer nothing interesting to discussion and they just shitpost

>>5277009
You cannot generalize all tripfags. Feminister was a good poster.

>>5277020


jesus christ

>>5277020
Feminister lives on as Jude Thadeus.

>>5273715
Dude, this stuff is the releasing the inner child part that new age hippies are talking about.

This dude is all about the cult of male youth. That libidinal absence of reason. It's basically praying for a miracle which is the only thing that will save the forgotten age when each man was guaranteed a woman. Men today are forced to settle for the latest form of papyrus.

Keep in mind though, that in russian and stuff, this guy is hot shit. Alexander Dugin thinks he's supercool. He'd gargle up his "soap residue" any day.

>>5277040
Nope, just another ordinary poster like you.

>>5273715
Evola is really obscure wtiter. Trying to understand his writing iwthout knowing the context (earlier traditionalst writers). Complaining about him is like complaining about Deleuze or Baudrillard being hard to understand without reading Nietzsche/Marx/Freud.
tl;dr: read Guenon first.

>>5273967
It's the retarded sense of entitlement, IMO.

>>5276586
>You even have foreign towns.

But they're incredibly American.

>>5277046
Alexander Dugin does not represent all Russians, you faggot.

>>5277345
So you only hate American white women, not the whole country.

>>5276578
He took my advice and is now planning his volkisch village with it's arts 'n' crafts store.

>>5273715
>What is the appeal?

It's basically the only intellectual justification fascists can turn to.

He has some interesting criticism of the modern age and its institutions and that's about it.

>>5273967
because most of us are IGNORANT AS FUCK, esp about political philosopher. AND, we're arrogant about it, and use guns to enforce our ignorance.

>>5273715
what were you reading

>>5276576
what should i read. I'm interested.

>>5276576
This, you need to -at least- fully understand the philosophical implications Plato's Republic and the possibly the logical conclusions of the Biblical book of Job (on the nature of God) to understand the basics of what Evola is out-setting.

Everyone itt are just mad he isn't an anarch-kiddie like them.

>>5277009
Wrong, I like the tripfag "Jude Thaddeus" a lot.

>>5277668
You mean Feminister's Phoenix?

>>5277020
Fuck that.

Feminister was a fucking dude posing as a chick. He was outed on /adv/.

You don't get to be a quality poster when the key aspect of your identity is "I'm a grrl on the internet!" Just no.

No one took him seriously. Every time he would talk, someone would fart (hence the expression), and everyone would quietly giggle.

>>5277710
>hasn't realized Jude Thaddeus is Feminster yet

The actual human behind both of them is well read and usually has interesting things to say. I happen to completely disagree with Jude and mostly agree with Feminister, but that's besides the point. The point is the person who made both of them (and I'm completely convinced they're the same person) is brilliant, and we're lucky to have him around.

>>5276586
Multiculturalism isn't a goddamn disaster in America like it is in Europe because it developed organically and nonideologically.

Why did Evola buy into all that Hindu bullshit?

>>5277649
>Everyone itt are just mad he isn't an anarch-kiddie like them
All of modernity was fashioned by your so-called anarch-kiddies, at least that's the narrative

>>5277710
>Feminister was a fucking dude posing as a chick. He was outed on /adv/

Screenshot?

>>5277814
Evola wasn't spooked, no. He wrote to make it seem like he was.

"Revolt" is Promethean fire for the discerning eye, it also helps to have reactionary proclivities to begin with.

>>5273715
The Perrenialist Brahmin-minded shit all over him and try to excommunicate him because he wrote to an audience of Kshatriya-minded.

The Leftists that don't understand him get lost in a maze of symbolism and imagery, whereas those that potentially do, denigrate him for his values, paint him as a kook and try to scare away readers with accusations of Fascism and Nazism.

He wasn't trying to convince anyone except those capable of deciphering what lay between the text.

>>5277965
sounds great. what should I read? where should i start?

>all these Evola fans

A tip of my fedora to you, Men of the West.

>>5277698
Has feminister posted anything since the incident?

>>5273967
Inferiority complex.

>>5273967
It's a combination of various things tbh.
As far as I can tell, European media is in love with stories like "America is dumb xD" and "merifats gettig fatter :)". Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but many Europeans seem extremely insecure and desperate, possibly because a disproportionate amount of movies, books, etc which they are exposed to are American. Another problem is that, due to the US's higher level of poverty and various propaganda machines, many Americans hold stupid opinions and Europeans, having already been trained by their own propaganda machines to dislike Americans, latch on to these public instances of stupidity, thereby revealing their own stupidity and hypocrisy.

tldr mutual stupidity

>>5278026
no, but she keeps in contact with a few posters from /lit/

>>5278025
Thanks for the tip

>>5278018
Revolt, but read Plato first and understand the basics of several religious systems/Western mythology. (you should be able to intuitively fill in the gaps for the eastern)

Carl Jung and Meister Eckhart (if you come from Christian background) might also be helpful.

>>5278025
RAtMW is to Reactionaries, what Prometheus Rising and The Ego and Its Own is to libertarians/anarchists, only more elitist in its accessibility and potentially better results.

>>5278078
What about 'the doctrine of the awakening' or 'hitler and the secret societies'?

>>5278098
Never been a fan of Hitler so wouldn't know about the latter, DoA is good, but its scope is limited compared to Revolt.

>>5278124
what's his schpeal? I really don't want to spend time reading another childish wealthy twat who's thinks he's better than everyone else and is angry because he actually has to perform in modern society to keep his position rather than simply own it by birth in a caste system.

I mean, that's just total faggotry

>>5278136
>some traditions are eternal and present everywhere
>we need to bring them back

>>5278136
Not spoonfeeding pleb babbies, sorry.

Thank Zeus esoteric knowledge is largely inaccessible to the faculties of the masses.

>>5278146
>if we don't bring them back, then by definition they aren't eternal
suck it

>>5278148
>largely inaccessible to the faculties of the masses
please, nigger. I've forgotten more than you know. the truth is, every neckbearded mouth-breathing faggot on 4chan says that exact same bullshit, the more they say it, generally, the more retarded they are. If you can't summarize a book, at least giving a basic direction, in just a few sentences, then you're illiterate. And, if you're illiterate, then I don't know why I should take your book advice.
See the problem?

Oh, and being part of a super-duper secretest astrologer club that jerk each other off while assuring themselves they are way better than the 'plebs' doesn't make you special. On the contrary, it makes you a pathetic faggot. If you want a self-righteous circle-jerk, then go to plebbit, or become a jew

>>5278052
Probably the best analysis you will get on 4chan for why both Americans and Europeans are idiots on the internet. Personally, I dislike the Euros more, because no matter what happens, they always find a way to blame America and then make some obnoxious post about it.

>>5274298
I don't think Evola's goal was to "advance" the academic process that he was clearly opposed to. He attempts to create a right-wing spirituality, which is worth reading on its own for its odd novelty.

>>5278195
>he thinks Hegel is hard to understand for someone who can into the "super-duper secretest astrologer club"
kek, fyi Evola is pretty much an inverted form of German Idealism

>>5278261
>implying I said Hegel was hard to understand
kek, I wager you don't understand German Idealism

>>5278261
Actually, I take that back...

Please explain to me in what way is Evola an inverted form of German Idealism?

>>5278277
I'd wager that he means that his flow of history is cyclical instead of the Hegelian linear reasonable progress one. Evola liked Schelling though, so there's also that.

>>5278344
maybe. i mean, feuerbach and marx both thought they were 'inverting' hegel, too (and, ostensibly, in different ways). Kant and Hegel, both German Idealists, in one sense, could be seen as inversions of each other.
and the list goes on...

oh well, I'll try to give it a read. don't think I'll ever be a fanboy though, but who knows...

>>5278271

ayy

>>5278277
Well in relation to Hegelian historicism, man is moving away from Absolute Geist (Tradition i.e. Eternal Truths expressed through symbolic content) through the ever schismatic divisions of language.

i.e. Man is a fallen beast, not a rising star

>>5278271
Kant is actually largely describing the mindset of an initiate (albeit without transcendent orientation)

>>5278344
There were plenty of cyclists before Evola and Hegel.

If you want to read a right-wing mystic, Savitri Devi is a lot more interesting than Evola, imho

>>5278359
>i.e. Man is a fallen beast, not a rising star
*falling
FTFY (amirite)
Reminds me of Leibenfelz's Theozoologica (ps. don't let the niggers steal your super sperm. the only way back to divinity is through eugenics!)


>mindset of an initiate
yeah... I'm not sure that's what Kant was doing, nor do I think Hegel and Kant are, really, operating within the same tradition. but, I could be wrong...

>>5278364
linear history is a peculiarly modern invention. everything I've read of the ancients alludes to cyclical history

>>5278376
>linear history is a peculiarly modern invention. everything I've read of the ancients alludes to cyclical history
Everything I've read of the ancients alludes to a flood with only a small segment of humanity and a pair of every species of animal being saved on a boat. Cyclical history as a serious study and substantiated theory didn't start until Machiavelli.

>>5278376
Linear history originated in Zoroastrianism and Judaism, but you're right that the concept of cyclical history appears in Greek, Indian, and Mesopotamian traditions.

>>5278387
>Cyclical history as a serious study and substantiated theory didn't start until Machiavelli
that is absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. The Greeks espoused a cyclical history, for instance, and, ironically, the Flood was just one part of a cyclical history (The Fall, The Flood, The Tower of Babel all being analogous elements within cyclical history)

I don't remember Machiavelli having cyclical elements, but I'm not as sure on that one...

>>5278395
Judaism is cyclical. see: >>5278410

The whole of the history of Israel are a series of cycles of Fall, rebirth, renewal, triumph, decadence, etc

>>5278410
The Greeks such as Hesiod espoused the idea that there was a past ages of heroic warrior men, and that the next age will be peaceful and safe, and that this age is neither safe nor heroic, but someone like Herodotus never puts forward several various examples of civilizations booming and declining based on a certain set of principles.

Then you haven't read Discourses on Livy

>>5278418
Plato and Aristotle both give cyclical histories of human organization (development of the polis). You apparently haven't read any of the philosophical canon.

And, yes, now that I think of it, I seem to remember Machiavelli giving a similar cyclical history. We talked about it, and how it was a legacy of ANCIENT thinking.

Look, the Greek understanding of the world is undeniably cyclical. It is patently absurd to say otherwise, even if they believed in 'Ages' which had different overriding qualities. The central concept in linear history is that of Progress (hence, linear rather than cyclical). For some, that is the very DEFINITION of modernity - the divide between the ancients and the moderns.

>>5278418
>>5278434
(cont) oh, and btw, the 'Ages' were also cyclical - based upon the precession of the equinoxes. It's just a 25k yr cycle. ;-)

>>5278052
You forgot how it's an easy troll, but pretty good.

>>5278434
>Plato and Aristotle both give cyclical histories of human organization (development of the polis). You apparently haven't read any of the philosophical canon.
I have, and I really don't think you get my point, which is that there was no rigorous historical cross-examination of civilizations to substantiate these ideas until Machiavelli. A priori really isn't the same thing.

>And, yes, now that I think of it, I seem to remember Machiavelli giving a similar cyclical history. We talked about it, and how it was a legacy of ANCIENT thinking.
Only in the sense that everything about him was.

>Look, the Greek understanding of the world is undeniably cyclical. It is patently absurd to say otherwise, even if they believed in 'Ages' which had different overriding qualities. The central concept in linear history is that of Progress (hence, linear rather than cyclical). For some, that is the very DEFINITION of modernity - the divide between the ancients and the moderns.
That has to do simply with retrospect of the past being greater, but that doesn't mean that greatness will come again (which would require a belief in progress). Many civilizations venerated their ancestors.

Love how this board digs up obscurer authors like Evola, Stirner.

>>5278412
But Judaism has an explicit 'end of history' in the arrival of the Messiah, the Last Judgement, and the world to come, so it's fundamentally a linear conception of history.

>>5278453
>world to come
You just refuted yourself

>>5278457
The world to come isn't a new beginning like you get at the end of a Greek or Indian cycles, it's essentially the end of time.

>>5273715

If you take away his horrible writing style and reliance on bizarre metaphors, you're left with a relatively comprehensive, not too difficult-to-understand right-wing philosophy that was written in the last hundred years.

Evola and Stirner

Campbell and Junger

The latter couple perform similar functions as the first couple, but aren't dicks about it...

>>5278439
>rigorous historical cross-examination of civilizations to substantiate these ideas until Machiavelli
BULLSHIT
1) you said cyclical history didn't exist until Machiavelli.
2) The fact that (the pretension toward) a 'science' of politics didn't exist until Machiavelli is such a truism, as to be banal.
3) Machiavelli was not 'rigorous' in any sense of the term

>Only in the sense that everything about him was
BULLSHIT
1) you just contradicted your last statement where Machiavelli represented a BREAK with the ancients
2) it is ancient in the sense that
----a) there are cycles rather than progress
----b) these cycles are, largely, outside of human control (they are inevitable)

>That has to do simply with retrospect of the past being greater
BULLSHIT
That had to do with the fact that their whole ethos was cyclical. The Moon, the Seasons, The equinoxes/solstices, The Constellations, etc. Are you fucking retarded?
Look, here's Plato's cyclical theory of human socio-political organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes

>>5278453
this >>5278457

That's just the shit to keep the schmucks in line. lmao.

But, seriously, even Plato had a 'how we get out of the cycle' narrative. But, his was a cyclical theory. Plato seems a little more pessimistic about the chances of 'it' happening, at least ostensibly. But, in both cases, it takes a deus ex machina (luck/lawgiver, god/messiah) to get humanity out of the cycle.

There's another interpretation of Plato that says that his Republic is actually descriptive, not prescriptive, but that's another story altogether...

>>5280421
1) It didn't. While among the ancients there is a degree of overlap between myth and history, all the cyclical chronicles are purely myth.

>>5278387
A theory of development without history, is not history. It's pure philosophy.

>2) The fact that (the pretension toward) a 'science' of politics didn't exist until Machiavelli is such a truism, as to be banal.
I'm not sure that's actually any sort of argument, but I'm not talking about political science anyway, I'm talking about drawing the conclusion of a cyclical development of civilization from historical study. Machiavelli also looked for political strategy, but that is beside the point.

>3) Machiavelli was not 'rigorous' in any sense of the term
He was certainly rigorous in regard to all the data he had access to. If what he wrote were done today, he'd look like Robert Greene, but that's only because there's a lot more available resources.
>1) you just contradicted your last statement where Machiavelli represented a BREAK with the ancients
Machiavelli represented a break with Christian values in favor of ancient values.

>----a) there are cycles rather than progress
A cycle requires both progress and decline. However, the Greek awareness that individual civilizations rise and fall (as opposed to a general idea of "civilization" itself), was only cyclical if you stretch the shit out of the term. The idea of a race itself becoming weaker and less manly, only works toward decline with the Greeks; the generation before the Trojan war was stronger than the Trojan generation, and the Trojan generation was stronger than the later generation, but generations like that aren't going to come again.

>Look, here's Plato's cyclical theory of human socio-political organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes
That's not cyclical, but at least you're not using "history" anymore.

>>5280727
>That's not cyclical
I'll explain this a little better in case you don't understand: Plato doesn't indicate any stages of progress toward an apex. Cyclical theory means you go through stages of progress, reach an apex, then go through stages of decline (generally ending with the termination of that civilization). Plato just posits the original state as the most desirable, and says there's no where to go but down from there, unless you can regress to the original stage. He does not offer a theory of stages that turn a civilization from not much into something great, which is vital.

>>5280727
>1) ...all the cyclical chronicles are purely myth
But, that's completely irrelevant to our discussion. The point is, myth or not, that's the way they thought. Christ, are you really this dense?

the distinction between 'myth' and 'reality' is also a modern invention you truly are an illiterate

>>5280745
>He does not offer a theory of stages that turn a civilization from not much into something great, which is vital
I'll explain this a little better since its clear you don't understand.
What you're describing is not cyclical history, as opposed to linear history, you illiterate. You're transposing modern concepts such as 'progress' and 'decline' upon Greek thought, and that's why you're so confused.

>>5280745
>Plato just posits the original state as the most desirable
[citation needed]
Christ, you have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

>(generally ending with the termination of that civilization)
Wrong again! Because, since it is cyclical, you have a stage of renewal and rebirth in which the CYCLE starts over.
Only MODERNITY posits an END (either good or bad, generally good). That's why concepts such as 'progress' and 'decline' (in the HISTORICAL sense of these terms) don't exist in Greek thought.

Seriously, if you're trolling, then 10/10. It's truly subtle, yet at the same time an exposition of complete arrogance in ignorance. bravo, bravo!

So what's this thread saying is, that if I want a good critique of modernity with focus on parliamentary democracy and such, I should stay with Carl Schmitt?

>>5280788
>But, that's completely irrelevant to our discussion. The point is, myth or not, that's the way they thought. Christ, are you really this dense?
No, they didn't, not in the sense of cyclical theory. Breath of Brahma ≠ historical cycles of civilization.

>the distinction between myth and reality is also a modern invention
No, it isn't. Certainly myth got mixed in with history in the past, and sometimes myths got included purely out of respect to tradition, but Herodotus retells many myths in more rational fashion (such as the Trojan War), and outright says when he thinks a myth he heard is bullshit. He's not even close to 100% accurate, but it's quite clear that the ancients could distinguish between "actually happened" and "fairy tale".

>>5280854
God damn you are a pleb.

I bet you've never even heard of Paul Veyne.

>>5280835
>What you're describing is not cyclical history, as opposed to linear history, you illiterate. You're transposing modern concepts such as 'progress' and 'decline' upon Greek thought, and that's why you're so confused.
But progress (followed by decline) is fundamental part of cyclical theory. Which is my point.

>[citation needed]
What? The Republic. It even says it is in your own source.

"These five regimes progressively degenerate starting with Aristocracy at the top and Tyranny at the bottom."
"Aristocracy is the form of government (politeia) advocated in Plato's Republic."

>Wrong again! Because, since it is cyclical, you have a stage of renewal and rebirth in which the CYCLE starts over.
The Roman Empire did not renew itself after falling.

>>5280854
>no u
No U!

your turn

>>5280888
>What? The Republic. It even says it is in your own source.
Jesus, you're so illiterate you don't even understand what you're reading.

Rule by Philosopher-Kings /= Aristocracy in Plato

Look everything you're saying is extremely confused. The question is: Why?
you're still transposing modern thought and categories onto Greek thought

>>5280888
>The Roman Empire did not renew itself after falling.
Why does whether or not the Roman Empire renewed itself after falling have anything to do with whether or not a people, who existed hundreds of years previous, believed that societies renew themselves?

Do you realize how absolutely illogical you are being right now?

>>5280916
Rule by philosopher kings is certain a type of aristocracy, since Plato defines aristocracy as "rule by the best".

>you're still transposing modern thought and categories onto Greek thought
Actually, you are. Cyclical theory of progress followed by decline did not exist back then.

>>5280854
>ancients could distinguish between "actually happened" and "fairy tale".
that's not the same as the difference between 'myth' and 'reality'.

Do you even Ancients vs. Moderns?

>>5280953
>is certain a type of aristocracy
nope. wrong again.


>Cyclical theory of progress followed by decline did not exist back then
[pic related]
That's YOUR definition of 'cyclical theory'. MY definition doesn't include such modern concepts such as 'progress' and 'decline'. Note that I've been making that argument THIS WHOLE TIME, but you seem to continue to ignore it.

>>5280932
The Greeks thought the Mycenaeans would come back to power?

>>5280958
Was the difference between "actually happened" and "reality"? What's the difference between a myth and a fairy tale?

>>5280978
Only if you haven't read The Republic and you don't know what "aristocracy" means in it.

>MY definition doesn't include such modern concepts
Oh, well shit, here I thought you were using an established term the way it's been established, but the whole time you were just making up your own definition.

>>5281000
>The Greeks thought the Mycenaeans would come back to power?
[facepalm]

>What's the difference
[facepalm]

>if you haven't read The Republic
[facepalm]

>an established term the way it's been established
*in the Modern sense of the term
FTFY
[epic facepalm] lolololololololol
I've been trying to tell you this whole time that you're transposing modern thought onto greek thought. Were you not listening?

>>5281000
>>5281075
shit. forgot the macro

>>5281075
>in the Modern sense of the term
Yes, since we're, uh, talking about Evola, I mean the term in the sense of the theories of Machiavelli, Durant, and Spengler.

>>5280843
Or Vilfredo Pareto/Robert Michels.

>>5278387
>Cyclical history as a serious study and substantiated theory didn't start until Machiavelli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_cycle

>>5278395
This, but it only became really popular with christian millenialists like Joachim of Fiore.

>>5281096
>Yes, since we're, uh, talking about Evola
Yes, Evola: the one who propounds ancient wisdom in a "Revolt Against the Modern World"

the only honorable way out for you is to admit defeat

>>5281204
Evola rights his own shit. If he suggested pure ancient wisdom, he's just write a reading list of books to read Evola's cyclical notion comes from Spengler.

>>5281190
I will grant you the first, who beat Machiavelli by a couple of hundred years, and the last (which was developed as a way of justifying taking the throne). The middle is more just a statement of decline. However, I'd still credit Machiavelli with introducing the notion in the West.

>>5281388
>writes his own shit

>>5274277
>He looks someone just farted directly into his face.
>Someone just grabbed him and held him down while another person dropped their pants and released a blast of flatulence gas directly into his face. And now Evola is struggling not to cry.
>That is the sort of person who is attracted to Evola. They are people who feel that the past couple hundred years are nothing but a personal insult against them--a farted directly into their face--and they're determined to cry about it forever.

the fact that someone would write something this stupid against evola makes me wish that i were into him

>>5273715
Evola had a warped understanding of Hermeticism and mysticism.

Hegel was a true hermeticist.

>>5281388
>he's just write a reading list of books
illiterate much?

"Only when we have succeeded in recapturing a living and "symbolic" sensitivity toward everything modern man has fossilized as dead "nature" and abstract concepts will we arrive at the first principle of the true hermetic teaching. This principle is unity, and rhe formula that expresses it can be found in the Chrysopoeia of Cleopatra"
--Evola, from The Hermetic Tradition: Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art

This whole book is basically a "reading list of books to read" with a narrative connecting them telling you why you should read them and how they are connected.

Come to think of it, isn't that what ALL intellectual writing is? What's that old joke?
Q: What's the difference between an academic and a plagiarist
A: A plagiarist passes of another person's ideas as his own, whereas an academic passes off LOTS of other people's ideas as his own.

Dammit, /lit/, you are literally stooping to /pol/ levels of retardation, here.

>>5281428
Properly speaking, Evola didn't think reading books did anything for you. He thought your essence was internalized.

>"Worldview" is not based on books; it is an internal form, which at times in a person with little education is expressed much more brightly, than in some other "intellectual" or scientist.”

An academic wants to do it different or better.

>>5281438
Thanks for the non sequitur. Would you like to make any other unrelated statements at this point?

C'mon, get them out of your system...

Or, were you trying to start a new conversation?

>>5278447
>tfw when they become part of the uni reading list
>tfw when will have finnaly done something good

>>5281406
a.s. raleigh is pretty good too, haven't read hegel yet though.

>>5273715
I think that Miguel Serrano read Evola and thought "I can do this better."

>>5273715
He's wearing a monocle in that picture what did you fucking expect