ebola

[Anonymous No.20736181]

was this guy any good

[Anonymous No.20736191]

>>20736181
I read “Ride the Tiger” and it’s literally just a self-help book with mystical mumbo-jumbo. You might as well read it so you realize it’s not the polemic it’s hyped up to be.

[Anonymous No.20736353]

>>20736181
Evola was gloriously cogent on a lot of modern issues, him and Spengler were eerily accurate even to the modern day

[Anonymous No.20736368]

>>20736181
chudola

[Anonymous No.20736383]

Not really. Once you get out of your Fascist/Nietzschean/NeoPagan phase you figure out that he's really just sort of talking nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20736385]

>>20736181

No. But if you are a rightwing dipshit, the bar is so low you'll sell yourself anything at this point.

[Anonymous No.20736442]

>>20736191
I agree I was expecting more. You literally get 95% of Evola's ideas in his meme images

[Anonymous No.20736545]

>>20736181
just read german idealism, you'll get the whole warrior of the spirit package without the bullshit, if you kie eastern philosophy read Heidegger too

[Anonymous No.20736581]

>>20736181
Yes. Awesome.

>>20736191
It says under the title "a survival manual for the aristocrats of the soul".

[Anonymous No.20736589]

>>20736383
No he isn't. You got filtered hard or you just don't believe in spirituality, which at that point he isn't for you anyway.

[Anonymous No.20736594]

>>20736368
Painfully unfunny.

[Anonymous No.20736597]

>>20736545
Evola built on german idealism and made it better.

[Anonymous No.20736610]

>>20736581
>>20736589
t. clearly an aristocrat of the soul

[Anonymous No.20736627]

>>20736368
Thanks for the good kind stranger. Wow, this blew up. The dragon sized dildo in my ass really makes me think, that’s capitalism for you. This, so much this. Let’s unpack that. The only thing that stings more than the pain of your thrice a day dildo dilation is the look on your dad’s face when you weakly tell him that you love him. He doesn’t say it back.

[Anonymous No.20736630]

>>20736627
I kekd

[Anonymous No.20736648]

>>20736627

[Anonymous No.20736774]

>>20736368
kek

[Anonymous No.20736811]

>>20736181
No

[Anonymous No.20736834]

>>20736774
Oops meant for >>20736627

[Anonymous No.20736836]

>>20736383
He is none of these things

[Anonymous No.20736852]

>>20736383
>zoomer, whose entire life story can be told as a series of "phases" he went through via doing whatever his latest podcast/twitter collective told him to do, tries to describe the lives and commitments of real humans
It's like a monkey wearing a little suit! He thinks he's people!

[Anonymous No.20736899]

>>20736353
>>20736581
>>20736589
>>20736594
>>20736597
>>20736836
These guys are right.
>>20736627
>>20736852
lol

[Anonymous No.20737355]

>>20736899
No

[Anonymous No.20738755]

>>20736181
>was this guy any good
Yeah, he was a great author. Severly underrated.

[Anonymous No.20738756]

>>20737355
>refuted by Guénon.
Keep coping, leftcuck.

[Anonymous No.20739219]

bump

[Anonymous No.20739228]

>>20736589
Evolians believe in spirituality the same way California yoga moms believe in spirituality but edgier.

Everything this guy wrote was made up. He literally calls on you to accept the Hyperborean myth as true history. Why? Just trust me, bro.

[Anonymous No.20739234]

>>20736836
He was all of them combined and synthesized actually.

[Anonymous No.20739366]

>>20739228
>Evolians believe in spirituality the same way California yoga moms believe in spirituality but edgier
No they don't, go back to twitter with your mental retardation

[Anonymous No.20739396]

>>20739366
They absolutely do. He wrote a book called The Yoga of Power and it is sold in New Age shops along with other California yogis and gurus.

[Anonymous No.20739459]

>>20739396
Ok but then your argument is over spirituality vs materialism, if you don't believe in or know anything about spirituality your opinion on his spiritual views is irrelevant and you're just running your mouth.

So it goes without saying that you're entirely incorrect to compare his spirituality to "cali yoga moms but edgier", his views are the same as the views of nobleman from ancient times. If you're arguing they're the same because they both believe in higher dimensions then that's just being stupid, but maybe that is your goal anyway.

[Anonymous No.20739464]

>yep its super fascism time

[Anonymous No.20739471]

>>20739234
>ACKSHUALLY
>t. Leftist incel who unironically says chud and whines about 4chan nazis
Fun fact: nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.20739482]

>>20739464
Supra*

[Anonymous No.20739564]

>>20739459
No. That’s Evola et. al’s argument. He has a false dichotomy conception of materialism and his incoherent spiritualism. The choice is not between Bill Nye and Fashy Joe Rogan, which Evola is. That he opposes materialism doesn’t make him right. He is still endorsing New Age nonsense or coming up with it himself.

[Anonymous No.20739569]

>>20739471
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Anonymous No.20739605]

>>20739482
no u

[Anonymous No.20739662]

>>20736442
That just means the memes are eloquently well made.

[Anonymous No.20739761]

>>20739564
>He is still endorsing New Age nonsense or coming up with it himself.
>the beliefs of the Roman patriciate and Emperors initated into Mithraism are new age nonsense
>le fashy joe rogan
I think Twitter has ruined your mind. Perhaps you can explain why he's new age? Because it seems more like you just apply the label for rhetorical purposes since both believe in higher dimensions, and that's about it. If you went into more detail you would see that they are very different.

[Anonymous No.20739778]

>>20739569
You haven't made an argument so that doesn't apply, you idiotic nigger tranny.

[Anonymous No.20739927]

>>20739761
Loose and syncretic mix of various spiritual doctrines, vague and mystical writings, not part of any orthodoxy or organized religion, particular emphasis on occult, esotericism, fascination with Eastern religions. This is New Age to a Tee. Probably the only reason you don’t think so is because he’s right wing, but that has little to do with it.

[Anonymous No.20740009]

>>20739564
>and Fashy Joe Rogan, which Evola is

Evola described himself as "Guenon for hooligans." He would have loved Joe Rogan and been on his show to smoke weed and shit talk libs and boomer republicans.

[Anonymous No.20740534]

>>20739927
>Loose and syncretic mix of various spiritual doctrines,
No, he had rigourous definitions that he followed and applied while studying various ancient spiritual traditions. He got this from Guenon. Something like initiation for example is defined extremely clearly, same goes for the realm of Being and Becoming. Nor are his ideas syncretistic. See Guenon again on syncretism vs synthesis. I don't see how his writings are vague unless you are referring to the truly esoteric stuff, but even then they are clear compared to others. Mystical? again, it seems like you are just branding all esotericists as "new age", no doubt due to a lack of understanding.
>This is New Age to a Tee
You are the syncretist here. Cherrypicking certain similarities to come up with wrong analogies. You could have talked about Evola's anti-egalitarianism, fundamentally aristocratic, anti-democratic worldview, as well as his beliefs (influenced by esotericism) that humanity is involuting or devolving, not evolving. He also believes in eternal truth accessible only to the few, fundamentally opposed to new age beliefs.

So yes, it really seems like you conflate esotericism with new-age. You clearly haven't read him either. You've probably watched a youtube video or something. Very lazy overall. Are you fat?

[Anonymous No.20740544]

>>20740009
He would have thought Joe Rogan a chimp or n***** in spirit and he would essentially be correct.

[Anonymous No.20741074]

>>20740544
You mean Evola would have thought Joe Rogan was a guenon.

[Anonymous No.20741085]

>>20740534
>See Guenon again on syncretism vs synthesis.

Remember how Guenon didn't practice exoterically until 1930? From 1910 he was """initiated""" into Sufism by Ivan Agueli. He also received Taoist initiation while getting high on opium. He married in a Catholic ceremony a fervently Catholic woman and attended mass but never took communion. While privately practicing some kind of Sufism, the freemason seances late at night, Taoism, and Catholicism, but none fully.

That's syncretism. Guenon only really left syncretism when he was stuck in Egypt and decided the exoteric aspect of Islam was important to him and thus it became a doctrine of Traditionalism/Perennialism.

[Anonymous No.20741258]

>>20741085
People are so fascinated with (or hysterically judgmental against) the personal history, little exotic flaws and details, apparent “authenticity” or “inauthenticity” (usually in terms of how rigidly they adhere to some cultural guidelines or formulation), repute or lack thereof, of their modern sources of knowledge, scholarship on spirituality and esotericism and the like, that it eventually obviously becomes clear that it masks a great vacuity and shallowness in actual thought and experiencing, and I don’t mean this as a harsh insult but just an observation. Instead of the truths and ideas themselves, it’s the person.

Someone like Guenon is a treasure-book of knowledge from wide-ranging forms of traditional spiritual theologies, symbology and philosophies. Whatever flaws or pettiness of him as a historical limited personality aside, you can find a richly laid out repertoire of knowledge of Vedantic, Hermetic, Taoist, Christian, Kabbalistic/Judaic, Sufic etc. theology in his work, synthesized in both a readymade and a rigorous fashion far more astute and scholarly than the average New Age bullshitting guru or poorly constructed website or blog— the quaint little “All religions are one,” “My thoughts on Taoism,” and the like.

I even used to dislike Guenon simply because I thought the posting on here about him seemed cultish but when I finally picked up his books from curiosity I realized and asked myself, “Why I am judging so quickly? He was simply writing in great depth of the traditions I’d already been interested in and learned so much from.” If you read Guenon on Vedanta, for instance, it’s not just some shallow quickly written thing, you could independently have done a detailed study of Indian yogic schools of thought and systems from traditional, reputed and authentic Indian sources then you could later find Guenon and realize he wasn’t doing more or different from what he was claiming to do, which is not to found or establish something “new” but to faithfully and accurately retranslate and give to the West these ancient teachings in as authentic and undiluted a form as possible, which is what happened in my case.

So if you get beyond the “Guenon himself as a person” it becomes rather a question, “Do you think the Taoists, Sufis, Hindu sages, and so forth, have anything authentic to teach us, any real wisdom and authentic understanding, or is it just far-out Eastern nonsense?” which is itself perhaps a suprarational matter of the heart and of faith (unduly “sentimental” as that would sound to the brainy Guenon), or decided intuitively, if you will. What Guenon-the-personality (obsessive focus on whom is a veil to the ideas he was expounding) is irrelevant to, is the actual traditional sources of knowledge. That’s the way I view it, without making a personality cult out of him or taking him as divine, as a perfect, unflawed, superhuman source of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20741354]

>>20741258
>>20741085
For instance, Buddhism is regarded as a tangential, flawed little side-piece which he didn’t give much attention to in his works and this is itself an imbalance of his, I think, but understandable from the heavily Sufic/Vedantic/Hermetic/Western theistic leanings of his, that of the the affirmation of Sat (Being), of Brahman as the omnipresent omniscient Divinity, the Center of All, which admittedly doesn’t seem like it fits well with the Buddhist emphasis on negation, the apparently paradoxical denial of Being and of Self, the focus on voidness as sunyata and the like, absolute centerlessness as opposed to the Absolute Center. But even such a tradition studied in itself has a depth and fascinating intricacy to it not immediately understandable from some simplified formulation of it. And there’s also the paradoxical so-sharp-strictness and sometimes petty caviling of Guenon himself, the idea that you MUST conform and anyone who doesn’t seem to conform is suspect etc. even if they end up saying and reaching and teaching rather similar conclusions as him (like the feud with Theosophy — which is valid enough, I note, since Theosophy can worthily be criticized, but obscures that Guenon and the Theosophists were ultimately working on similar lines), and the Islam-debacle at the end of his life (which seems almost like a transcendental confusion of the map and the territory in Guenon’s own life), because he really felt the need for this “authenticity”, cultural-authenticity-as-belonging-to-a-sect-or-tradition, which is strange when the thought of his works often seems so sophisticated and advanced beyond this pettiness.

So who or what really is “perfect” and unflawed? I’ve myself often suffered from preemptively thinking something is shallow or stupid without even bothering to look into it first due to some shallow misconception or preconception I had about it, I’m certain many people also have. The Buddhist master meditator says he has the truth beyond the Hindus, the Hindu jnana-yogi the beyond the Buddhists and everyone else, the Islamic Sufi sheikh or dervish the most authentic and complete revelation, and so forth, and if someone looks into these traditions and even the Western mystical and magical traditions like Evola does and comes up with their own formulation of wisdom we all make fun of it or instantly sneer at it, “They’re just some schizoid kooks trying to make their petty obscure lives seem and feel more cool and exciting than they really are” but how do we really know this? What do we know without studying and experiencing what can be studied and experienced of these traditions first? And what if the “Truth” isn’t just the attainment of any one or group of authoritative ego-scholar(s) who can now say they’re better than everyone else and have gotten the correct interpretation, but instead something like a living superconscient Divine presence which many have gotten glimpses of?

[emola No.20741430]

>>20736181
dunno. he was kinda not cool. but some people say hes based. so. i dunno. so much is going ooon right now. i dunno dude.

[Anonymous No.20741623]

>>20741085
You're essentially gossiping over his character instead of refuting his ideas. Refute his synthesis vs syncretism chapter in that book i forget. Spreading rumours about someone 70 years after their death is just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.20741807]

>>20740534
His "esotericism" was completely made up. It was his own construction based on personal readings of various occult personalities from the east and the rennaissance. This is new age. He did the same thing quacks like Crowley did, only he was nominally friendly to organized religion. In fact, he wrote a book praising Crowley. He wrote highly speculative books about esotericism. The guy penned letters to the theological society of Rome and got called out for having no clue what he was talking about. He is the epitome of New Age. They even sell his books in kitschy witchcraft shops along with books about spells and UFOs. The only way you could think he is not new age is if you sincerely believe he is handing down some hidden primordial knowledge. You have just been taken for a fool and doing mental gymnastics to justify it. I get it. I took him seriously once too. I defended him once too. But I came around to see what this is - very confused and strange new age nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20741818]

>>20740534
The guy literally tells you to trust in his hyperborean mythos and his magical system. If you can't see this is New Age, then that's your problem.

[Anonymous No.20741878]

>>20739228
>>20739927
>>20741807
>>20741818
I realized Evola was a waste of time for these reasons, and I've never bothered seriously reading him. He just seems full of himself like Crowley and has bad scholarship. It would make more sense to read scholarly translations of various world religion texts, while taking into account some nuance will always be lost in translation. These issues also affect the likes the of Alan Watts.

[Anonymous No.20741900]

>>20740544
Wew, imagine censoring yourself on 4chin.

[Anonymous No.20741906]

>>20741807
>His "esotericism" was completely made up. It was his own construction based on personal readings of various occult personalities from the east and the rennaissance
Kek. No it wasn't. He was basically using Guenon's framework and modifying it to fit the Ksatriya class. You have to refute Guenon or show how Guenon was new age then. Guenon was initiated into multiple esoteric Traditions since his early 20s and was considered a master in such areas. Good luck trying to refute him.
> In fact, he wrote a book praising Crowley.
Which one? please tell me, I've never heard about it. Sounds like more BS from you.
>He is the epitome of New Age.
You keep repeating this but you haven't refuted anything I've said that proves you wrong, in fact you haven't even engaged with it. He is radically anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic and aristocratic, he also believes in primordial and eternal truth, all of this stands drastically opposed to new age (which began 40 years later). And your very broad definition of new age seems to be "they use ideas from ancient Traditions"...words have meaning, you know, please use them correctly.
>They even sell his books in kitschy witchcraft shops along with books about spells and UFOs.
I doubt it. This is just vapid rhetoric to make up for your hopeless position that I have demolished. You definitely never read his books, you can't even engage in discussion or show you know what his worldview was, you're just pure rhetoric, like some kind of jew.

[Anonymous No.20741931]

>>20741878
You haven't even shown that you've read Evola, all you've done is label him as new age like a complete retard and then used very superficial criticisms ("he seems like crowley" -good argument xD) seemingly being more interested in slandering him (he is was a "nazi", right??) than in actually engaging in discussion. You're probably a leftist cuck.
Also
>Esotericism
>scholarly
Ha. As if we needed any more clues that you were completely out of it.

[Anonymous No.20741947]

>>20741807
>I took him seriously once too. I defended him once too. But I came around to see what this is - very confused and strange new age nonsense.
why did you ever take him seriously you stupid chudnigger

[Anonymous No.20741961]

>>20741947
Cuz Evola is supremely based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.20741967]

>>20741931
Actually, that was my first post in this thread...
I'm not a leftist, but I think metaphysics and religion should aim at being politically indifferent, though some of their followers may lean differently. Politics is extraneous in regards to the nature of the Absolute.

[Anonymous No.20741974]

>>20741961
Who are your favorite thinkers now? Let's see how cringe you really are.

[Anonymous No.20741993]

>>20736589
You never read him.

[Anonymous No.20741997]

>>20741974
I don't have any favourite "thinkers". Profane philosophy is pretty boring to me now.

[Anonymous No.20742129]

>>20741997
cringe

[Anonymous No.20742167]

>>20741258
>>20741354
Good posts but unfortunately pearls before swine

[Anonymous No.20742834]

>>20741258
>>20741354
>>20742167
yes, good effortposts deserving of more replies.

[Anonymous No.20742838]

>>20736181
His life was cool, but there's not much to gain from his writings themselves. Just read a secondary source.

[Anonymous No.20742849]

>>20736383
Please don't larp as if Nietzscheanism is somehow contingent on Evola. There is no going back from Nietzsche.
>libertarian
>Marxist
>fascist
>traditional monarchist
>religious
>anarchist
>transhumanist technocrat
>apolitical grinding businessperson
>tranny pornstar
Which one isn't a Nietzschean?

[Anonymous No.20742853]

>>20736181
test

[Anonymous No.20742860]

>>20741807
Evola is very interesting if you feel a need to desperately cling to religion because the moral subjectivism inherent in agnosticism is too much for you.
If you want to study Traditionalism in the hopes that there's a secret evidence of god in there somewhere, go ahead. I've given up. Our ancestors knew nothing, we know nothing. Our descendents might know something, depending.

[Anonymous No.20742903]

>>20742860
Moral subjectivism is the easy and default position to hold nowadays, asserting that morals are in some way objective puts you against the grain and is difficult to uphold without being assaulted from all sides. That said, most of these writers always acknowledged the basic contingency of morals, so that being a "traditionalist" is not going to help you assert that morals are somehow objective. Especially not Evola.

[Anonymous No.20742967]

>>20742903
The default position is actually secular humanism which is gay and retarded.