/lit/ - Literature

>>6874556
how many threads with exactly the same text are you going to make this year, OP?

>>6874556
Who is that from, Evola?

>>6874578

I want people to see that there is a right wing response to nihilism and that it's actually quite sensible.

>>6874592

yes and no. it's a sypnosis of Ride the Tiger written by an Italian academic in the 80s before Ride the Tiger had been translated to English.

Ok. How do I ride it

What exactly are 'inner pursits'? What does 'the search for your true nature' constitute? The thing with Evola is that he never went into any real depth, he just handwaved these problems away by saying things like, 'There is not enough space here to explain...' etc.

So the alternative is killing each other over things we make up?

I'll take the cheeseburgers and porn, thanks.

"big bang, big crunch, you know, there's no free lunch" - the guy from bad religion

>not reading other thinkers who confront these problems without devolving into magical thinking and retardation

Besides, m80, nationalist/conservative governments have been even worse at promoting (technological) progress and ideologies of production at society's expense.

>>6874921
name the best thinkers if you can

>>6874921
nationalism is a collectivist, plebeian sentiment and a spook

Conservatism is a subjective term, but in the Anglo-Atlanticist world usually referring to liberal conservatism, or those that actively defend the interests of the Third Estate bourgeoisie "upper" class of merchants and high finance. The very class that led and financed the French and American Revolutions as well as actively agitate in 1848.

>>6874850
While I agree with much of Evola's ideas such as regression of the castes, as well as his diagnostic of many modern conditions, I share your sentiment. I've yet to read Men Among the Ruins or Riding the Tiger, so perhaps someone else could contribute in that respect.

>>6874556
So Evola wants me to quit my job and start living that NEET life?

>>6874850

????? Seriously, read Ride the Tiger. The very first chapter is a tl;dr of what Evola thinks you should do and the whole book is him going into depth about it. You might think his answers are retarded but it's not as if he doesn't provide any.

>>6874905

"what's up with that, you'll cowards don't even smoke crack" - viper

>>6874652
But proletising shouldn't be a goal itself. It's there in the passage.

>>6874905
it's highly unlikely a big crunch will occur

>>6874850
Mountain climbing you fuck

>>6874921
Evola/Fascism isn't conservative.

Fascism is entirely outside of the Left/Right scale entirely.

>>6874556
It's bizarre that he starts off with a condemnation of liberation and then ends with an approbation of a kind of Rousseauist "searching for oneself" which is one of the main sources of modern so-called liberation.

>>6874556
Too much political nonsense in there. This is why I really only read Nietzsche.

>>6877313
but is it wrong tho?

>>6874556
Why should you reject politics? The quote says that society is in decay then tells you to not fix anything. This is really fucking dumb, only a coward would think this way.

The search for the true nature is a romantic ideal that came with the modern era, the age of enlightenment. But there is no nature at all. That dissolution you talk about is just a shift, a turn of events of all others, and the antiquated values that you deem important are themselves a corruption of previous ones. This very motion is the way time makes each era an unique moment of change and problems and solutions. It's always losing, always winning and to hold up to the old vision of things is to prefer to stay dead in the abyss of your own old-fashioned utopia. In other words, there is always someone nagging that things are getting worse and worse with times, but the new generation will always be thinking with a different head and so the dirt is revolved and the world renewed.

>>6877834
I agree with this post except the conclusion that the new generation will always bring renewal. This can be dangerous thinking because it doesn't use a critical lens to view new ideas and can lead to the discarding of old answers to new problems.

An example might be; the new generation grows disappointed with politics and gives up their civic responsibility to a dictator who will bring about sweeping changes to society.

>>6877855
I did not seek to side with what is new, merely pointing out that I can observe this will always come and is always present. The new ideas create new differences, new problems and is thus, the very act of living itself. Utopias and dystopias do not exist as an actuality, but always in the horizon. Our sense of history changes at each moment. Your imagination of how a dictatorship is like is based on all the horrible references of dictatorships you know. Except that if this notion was dissolved along with the values that make democracy desirable, something new would come that isn't like any democracy or any dictatorship you know today. We don't have a name for it, but in your language, that is a dictatorship and that is terrible. Because you're looking at the past, you cannot see how this new shape can bring good fortune, while the new generation can see its benefits clearly and will defend it as progress over people like you. We are constantly reiventing the wheel and bringing new problems along with the solutions we create for the previous ones.

>>6877890
> Your imagination of how a dictatorship is like is based on all the horrible references of dictatorships you know

You are assuming I think a dictatorship is inherently wrong. I was arguing that giving up civic responsibility is wrong, not that a dictator must be evil. To build a stable society the citizens must be active participants in the government. If members of a society give up their civic duties they allow that society to decay. Having a dictator for an extended period allows people to give up their civic duty more easily. This is why I think a dictator would be unnecessary, but not evil.

You also open by saying; "I did not seek to side with what is new", which contradicts your conclusion;" Because you're looking at the past, you cannot see how this new shape can bring good fortune, while the new generation can see its benefits clearly and will defend it as progress over people like you". You are siding with the new because it is not old, not that it is more effective at dealing with present problems. You also assume that I will always side with the old. What I said is that we should be mindful of the past when looking at the present and the future.

An example of this would be man made natural disasters. These have occurred in the past and now loom in the future (or present depending on your location). If we ignore the causes to these problems as well as the attempted solutions to these historical events we might miss out on creating a more perfect solution to the problems of the present and future.

>>6877960
*man made ecological disasters

>not reading Guénon
>not reading Baudrillard
>not reading Millet

Welp

>>6874556
>muh dadaism
>muh "spiritual" racism
>muh co-opting of Guénon
>muh drugs
>muh 1337 SS guard
>muh life as an idle rich
>muh chacra
>muh inspiration to terrorists
>muh abolishment of industry
>muh hand-made wheel chair

>>6874828
First, find a good tiger saddle.

>>6877345
Evola's traditionalism pre dates the left right paradigm

>>6877812
>>6877960
>muh civic duty

>>6877812
Evola says that the world is too far gone. You can't fix society, it's already beyond redemption.

>>6878892
Well I think Evola is wrong. We are active participants in society whether we choose to participate in governing or withdraw. Evola claims that society is doomed and does nothing to prevent disaster. If everyone stops trying to save the world then it surely is doomed.

>>6878909
He's right in regards to his views though. A radical traditionalist society like he wanted is never going to happen. At least not from any action he or anyone else took. Not everyone wants to 'save' the world in the same way. A single individual with esoteric views is not going to change society to what they want.

That's why he wants you to focus on yourself rather than wasting effort on society.

>>6877345
It is rightly placed with the general rightwing, along with imperialism, reactionaries, racists, religious fundamentalism etc. The general left isn't any more monolithic either, they just tend to oppose one another. The left/right paradigm is for general use only.
>>6878849
Too bad

>excessive hedonism is bad
>excesses in the name of a nation, race or ideology, even if they drive us toward extermination, are okay

Sorry brah, nihilism still is the right choice.

>>6878933
>He's right in regards to his views though. A radical traditionalist society like he wanted is never going to happen. At least not from any action he or anyone else took. Not everyone wants to 'save' the world in the same way. A single individual with esoteric views is not going to change society to what they want.

Then what is the point of wanting a radical traditionalist society if it cannot ever be achieved and no amount of effort will produce anything close to his satisfaction? What does radical traditionalism even mean? What traditions was he (not) trying to have society based on? Why are these traditions considered radical?

What is the point of focusing only on the self? Don't we exist in society? Doesn't this society also shape who we are? Focusing solely on myself is totally meaningless because I exist in a physical world with entities outside of the self. As a conscious entity I must interact and manipulate my environment which includes both my self and society.

>>6879006
Nihilism is just the fact that none of it has meaning. The right choice is subjective to the individual.
But being an extremist is pretty obviously bad. To me anyway.

>>6879009
Meaning is a spook. Every choice between boldness x safety, individual x collective, nation x world is made out of pure self-interest. Whatever meaning we associate to it serves only to rationalize or romanticize said egotistical decision.

>>6874556
>>6874652
>>6875252
>>6877345

>>6879023
Nah

>>6879073
yah

>>6879073
You're not welcome

>>6874556
sorry but i'm too punk rock for you

>>6874556
The only thing you'll be riding is my dick :^)

>>6878954
You don't see beyond a Left-Right political diagram, which only maintains Third Estate 'democracy'.
Racism in and of itself is apolitical
Religious fundamentalism is subjective. Puritanism, for example, has been argued to be the intellectual ancestor to progressive thought.

Time and time again you have proved yourself more ignorant than the average on this board in virtually any topic you 'contribute' in.

Great taste in sapphic pornography though.

Holy Diver
You've been down too long in the midnight sea
Oh what's becoming of me

Ride the tiger
You can see his stripes but you know he's clean
Oh don't you see what I mean

Gotta get away
Holy Diver

Shiny diamonds
Like the eyes of a cat in the black and blue
Something is coming for you

Race for the morning
You can hide in the sun 'till you see the light
Oh we will pray it's all right

Gotta get away-get away

Between the velvet lies
There's a truth that's hard as steel
The vision never dies
Life's a never ending wheel

Holy Diver
You're the star of the masquerade
No need to look so afraid

Jump on the tiger
You can feel his heart but you know he's mean
Some light can never be seen

Holy Diver
You've been down too long in the midnight sea
Oh what's becoming of me

Ride the tiger
You can see his stripes but you know he's clean
Oh don't you see what I mean

Gotta get away
Holy Diver

Dio finished the work evolution started

>>6875063
Jacques Ellul, Guy Debord, Lewis Mumford, McLuhan (when he isn't being nonsensical), Daniel Boorstin in The Image

Name the best "right-wing" thinkers