The only man to refute Guenon

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20942247]

> Guenon certainly acknowledged the fact that the manifestation of kingship and priesthood as two separate or even opposite poles was a relatively recent development in the history of humanity. Yet, Guenon argued in favour of the legitimate pre-eminence, in the present age, of priesthood (here associated with 'contemplation’ and 'knowledge’) over kingship and the warrior caste of the kshafriya (associated with action). By contrast, I argued that both poles being the product of a recent dissociation, one cannot be regarded as possessing greater dignity than the other: for both poles, I suggested, are equally remote from primordial unity.
-Path of Cinnabar

[Anonymous No.20942258]

>>20942247
That critiques only one idea. It's not a refutation of Guénon.

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20942264]

>>20942258
Which happens to be one of the core ideas of guenon

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942414]

We see the usurpation of the priestly elements over the noble ones time and time again whether it's Catholic priests or Indian Brahmins. There was always only one master race caste of conquering nobles and the priestly Brahmin usurpation over time is at the core of all problems

>To regard contemplation and action as complementary is therefore to adopt a point of view that is deeper and truer than the foregoing, since the opposition is reconciled and resolved, and the two terms to a certain extent balance one another. It would therefore seem to be a question of two equally necessary elements, which complete and support one another and constitute the twofold activity, inward and outward, of one and the same being, whether this be each man taken in himself or mankind viewed as a whole.
-Rene Guenon, Crisis of the Modern World

If contemplation and action are truly one and the same being, then it only makes sense if they spring from the one single caste. If there can never be a true contemplation-action split then having two separate brahmin-kshatriya castes makes zero sense. It is an artificial split.

tl;dr Nietzsche was right about priests. The future is High Ghibelline.

>inb4 it's just spiritual temperament

[Anonymous No.20942426]

Completely unrelated question, but I didn't want to make another Evola thread. I was reading his work on Buddhism and Evola mentions the separation of the priestly and warrior castes in later ages to be a sign of spiritual regression. Did he not acknowledge them both as spiritual realities and emphasize the superiority of the latter?

[Anonymous No.20942435]

>>20942426
Wait nvm, I just posted in this thread before reading it. I didn't think it would precisely address the thing I just read. Synchronicity is real.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942505]

>>20942435
you're welcome

Nietzsche talks about this too somewhere
I'm trying to hunt it down
He does a good job in explaining the divergence too

[Anonymous No.20942535]

>>20942414
I was never able to reconcile Nietzsche's statements like this, in my mind, with the later statements in Antichrist about the Brahmins being the epitome of a life affirming and non-resentful race/caste.

[Anonymous No.20942540]

>>20942535
>>20942414
It makes sense if he was referring specifically to Christian/Jewish priests, which is how he employs the term usually. But he does also occasionally use it referring to the Brahmins also.

[Anonymous No.20942556]

>>20942414
>If contemplation and action are truly one
Guenon wrote they are complementary, which does not mean they are “truly one”
> If there can never be a true contemplation-action split then having two separate brahmin-kshatriya castes makes zero sense.
What about the point that there is some evidence that one’s caste was originally based on ones actions and predispositions and that this was later on tied to birth as a proxy marker of such dispositions? In this case if someone is intelligent and predisposed to spiritual and intellectual matters while another person is unintelligent and unrefined but fearless the would that not be a case of people with two genuinely different dispositions that could each be validly said to belong to their own distinct grouping of people or caste?
> It is an artificial split.
It is the opposite of artificial since the caste system is traditionally viewed as being divinely ordained. The Sruti texts which are considered authorless revealed scriptures describe the Brahmin and Kshatriyas as being different.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942561]

In the Patrick Olivelle version of the Upanishads, he states quite clearly in the introduction that a noble-military caste was at the pinnacle of the Traditional Hindu civilization

[Anonymous No.20942564]

Evola respected Guenon immensely. You would know that if you had read him but you have not. You look up quotes online and spam these meaningless threads. Anyone engaging in the discussion of this thread has also not read either man. You are all a bunch of degenerate imbeciles.

[Anonymous No.20942583]

>>20942247
Maybe it is action in the West and contemplation in the East. Guenon was biased in favour of the East.

>>20942564
Dago reads Guenon you asshole.

[Anonymous No.20942593]

>>20942414

guenon and evola seem like two kids playing the pokemon trading card game and nietzsche is the kid who steals them out of their backpack and buries them in the sandbox, effectively ruining them with no real logic

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942596]

>>20942564
>t. has not read either man
>>20942556
>Guenon wrote they are complementary, which does not mean they are “truly one”
but if they both split from the original primordial unity, how can they not be truly one at its core?
as stated above, if there is no such thing as pure action or pure contemplation, then how can there be any type of real split into separate castes?
>since the caste system is traditionally viewed as being divinely ordained
yes, but the Brahmin-Kshatriya split came much later after the original caste system


My point is not that Brahmins should exist, but that this idea of "Brahmin families" in India is one of an inferior nature compared to that of the Medieval system where the Noble caste supplied the Kshatriya stock and Brahmin stock (often the second or third born sons). It is the more natural system that better reflects the primordial caste system.

[Anonymous No.20942600]

>Evola blowing my mind with multidimensional Judeo-Masonic Templar conspiracies in the second last chapter of every other book
Traditionalism is beyond redpilled. It is trancendentally redpilled. The knowledge is so deep that everything else seems pointless now. Once you get enough into it there isn't really any going back. Watch yourselves, lads. Guenon and Evola make guys like MPH seem like children.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942626]

>>20942583
as stated in another thread, im re-reading some guenon books through a critical lens
and by that, i mean im approaching him from a Evola/Nietzsche POV
in the end many core Guenonian positions will be further solidified by this exercise while allowing for more flexibility in other areas

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942632]

>>20942600
>Guenon and Evola make guys like MPH seem like children.
very true, I hope Guenon and Evola replace MPH and Albert Pike as the primary influences within American Freemasonry in the coming decades

[Anonymous No.20942641]

>>20942626
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQo1HIcSVtg

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942646]

>>20942596
>My point is not that Brahmins should exist
shouldn't*

[Anonymous No.20942657]

How do I sell the idea of multiple wives to my gf?

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942658]

>it is clear that the very assumption of the title of pontifex maximus by the head of the Christian religion, the pope, turned out to be more or less a usurpation, since pontifex magnus was originally a function of the king and of the Roman Augustus. Likewise, the characteristic symbols of the papacy, the double keys and the ship, were borrowed from the ancient Roman cult of Janus. The papal tiara itself derives from a dignity that was not religious or priestly, but essentially initiatory, and from the dignity proper of the "Lord of the Center” or of the "sovereign of the three worlds." In all this we can visibly detect a distortion and an abusive shift of dimension that, although they occurred in a hidden way, are nevertheless real and testify to a significant deviation from the pure traditional ideal.
-Revolt Against the Modern World


>For the entire duration of the Roman Empire in the East, the Church was always a state institution dependent on the emperor, who exercised a universal rule. The beginning of the priestly usurpation can be traced back to the declarations of Pope Gelasius I (ca. 480).

[Anonymous No.20942674]

unrelated, but dago you seem knowledgeable:
does evola make any comment on the relevance of number of sexual partners someone has in his metaphysics of sex?

[Anonymous No.20942681]

>>20942658
>since pontifex magnus was originally a function of the king and of the Roman Augustus
Why does he leave out that it was a separate office for the entire interregnum between kingdom and empire?

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942689]

>In my books I have often dwelled on this traditional teaching. In such an esoteric sense, the kingdom of the Grail, just like Arthur’s, Prester John’s, Thule, Avalon, and so
forth, endure forever. The words “non vivit” found in the Sibylline formula “vivit non vivit” does not refer to it. In its polar character this kingdom is immobile. It does not get closer to various points in the flow of history; rather it is the flow of history, to which men and kingdoms get more or less close.

> For a certain period of time it seemed that the Ghibelline Middle Ages approximated this kingdom to a great degree. This epoch appeared to offer sufficient conditions for the “kingdom of the Grail” to turn from occult into manifest, affirming itself as a reality that is simultaneously inner and outer, in a unity of the spiritual authority and of the temporal power, just as it was in the beginning.
-Mystery of the Grail

Only through the Grail King will we enter a new Golden Age

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942699]

>In my books I have often dwelled on this traditional teaching. In such an esoteric sense, the kingdom of the Grail, just like Arthur’s, Prester John’s, Thule, Avalon, and so forth, endure forever. The words “non vivit” found in the Sibylline formula “vivit non vivit” does not refer to it. In its polar character this kingdom is immobile. It does not get closer to various points in the flow of history; rather it is the flow of history, to which men and kingdoms get more or less close.

> For a certain period of time it seemed that the Ghibelline Middle Ages approximated this kingdom to a great degree. This epoch appeared to offer sufficient conditions for the “kingdom of the Grail” to turn from occult into manifest, affirming itself as a reality that is simultaneously inner and outer, in a unity of the spiritual authority and of the temporal power, just as it was in the beginning.
-Mystery of the Grail

Only through the Grail King will we enter a new Golden Age

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942768]

>>20942674
I don't recall t b h
but
in Sufi of Rome he reminds the author many times to never get married if you want to be a true initiate

idk sounds like incel cope to me

[Anonymous No.20942771]

>>20942699
checked and based

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942775]

>>20942768
on the other hand, he says that there is no reason a female cannot be an initiate

synthesis:
find yourself a female initiate as a wife
if you can get get multiple then have at it

[Anonymous No.20942820]

>>20942775
I've read that having a wife as an initiate can only occur under extremely rare circumstances, where you are basically initiated together, in a special type of initation passed down by through certain families. Also, in Intro to Magic, they say that women can only achieve the lesser mysteries, and not the greater, but that is not "set in stone". There were also chivalric orders for women in the past, which is odd. I think they were more centered around healing. However, women may have been able to achieve more under pre-Christian societies in Europe. Abrahamic religions oppressed them more, due to the inferiority of their people.

[Anonymous No.20942836]

dago learn italian you nigger

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942888]

>>20942820
interesting
this is a topic I want to dive into more over the coming year
i've been reading some norse /lit/ recently
my conclusion is that if you can't find yourself a Goddess then try to get yourself a Giantess
you can still give birth to a God this way
>>20942836
i'll stick to Italian-American English for now, thanks goombah

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20942897]

>>20942820
> There were also chivalric orders for women in the past
I don't see why something like a Knights Hospitaller cannot be oriented towards woman
one would think that a healing-based order would be naturally compatible with the feminine

idk just a thought

[Anonymous No.20942902]

>>20942897
As a medfag, the physician has always been a traditionally male role for a good reason. You need that same masculine centrality to weather the unpredictable nature of disease and the body. Even the scalpel should bring to mind masculine imagery.

[Anonymous No.20942935]

>>20942247
That's a beautiful hand.

[Anonymous No.20942945]

>>20942247
>>20942414
the Traditionalist School is just a bunch of retards imagining things then getting angry that others imagine different things

[Anonymous No.20942949]

>>20942945
>the Traditionalist School
Doesn't exist, it is a useful scapegoat though to show who was filtered or who does not read.

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20942967]

>>20942902
So if we were to apply this through the framework of >>20942820, make physicians could be initiated into the greater mysteries while female nurses into the lesser ones, no?

[Anonymous No.20943061]

>>20942596
Yes the Greek warrior aristocracy didn’t have any priest class specifically, they were drawn from same pool as the warriors. The problem is the Semitic priest caste being text interpreters rather than philosophers who are rooted in the body.

[Anonymous No.20943081]

>>20942768
>>20942775
>in Sufi of Rome he reminds the author many times to never get married if you want to be a true initiate
Total bs. Nicholas Flamel and his wife both discovered the Stone together.

[Anonymous No.20943094]

Where does Guenon talk about the two pillers of kingship? I know nothing about the man but I just read The King's Two Bodies on exactly that topic and it could be my introduction to him.

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20943095]

however
>There are recipes for the feeling of power, firstly for those who can control themselves and who are thereby accustomed to a feeling of power; then for those in whom precisely this is lacking. Brahminism has catered for men of the former sort, Christianity for men of the latter.
-Nietzsche

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20943099]

>>20943081
I agree it’s bs

[Anonymous No.20943138]

>>20942681
Because Evola always manipulates historical realities to fit a narrative, not the other way how it should be done. It is very common with his works. For example in Metaphysics of War he even presents what was probably his own quote as historical Muslim quote, while Quran literally says the opposite.
This issue is one that implies wider problem with Evola's work - while ignoring it's intrinsic value elsewhere, it sometimes has tendency to fall into what is basically a headcanon. One might argue if it was his own personal cope or not, but it has all the signs. And once you open this can of worms, biggest and harshest question already comes up - if he deliberately bends historical facts here and there, how much of his whole work is actually worth it?

>>20943061
There is no such thing as "Greek warrior aristocracy". Homoios of Sparta (organized under their oligarchy) were wildly different in pretty much every facet of their life, duties, authority, culture and other things from their free men equivalents from say Athens or Corinth or other city states.
>The problem is the Semitic priest caste being text interpreters rather than philosophers
You can't generalize here either.

[Anonymous No.20943154]

>>20943138
>if he deliberately bends historical facts here and there, how much of his whole work is actually worth it?
I didn't say he bent historical facts , he treated the Republic as less important. Most of his historical knowledge is accurate, with the occasional errors that crop up, and cropped up even in historians at the time.
>Homoios of Sparta (organized under their oligarchy) were wildly different
A) Sparta was not an oligarchy (unless you define all minority governments, even warrior rule, as oligarchies), B) of course Spartan lives were different, as they were basically always fixated on warfare and martial ability (the men at least). It's why so many historic Greek writers had so much envy for Sparta's constitution, namely Aristotle, Plato, etc. The Spartans had a large serf caste of different nationalities who support the homoios in their wars and military lifestyles. You're also confusing the late, relatively democratic period of Greek history with the early, aristocratic Homeric period (see Aristotle's Politics on the "heroic monarchies" which "no longer exist").

[Anonymous No.20943186]

>>20943154
>You're also confusing the late
That is the thing, I am not. You are proving the point - you simply cannot generalize populations of Free men of Greek city states into "Greek warrior aristocracy" and be done with it. Wild differences between polis', between eras, etc.
>(unless you define all minority governments, even warrior rule, as oligarchies)
Considering word itself is literally "rule of the few" then yes, it was an oligarchy.
>I didn't say he bent historical facts
I am saying that, because that is exactly what he did. Repeatedly. You simply can't build "system" so grand and overarching on "mostly fine, bro".

[Anonymous No.20943401]

>>20942247
>The only man to refute Guenon
>The only man
Aren't you forgetting someone?

[Anonymous No.20943408]

>>20942626
Guenon, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Evola, Duguin and who??

[Anonymous No.20943410]

>>20942626
>Dugin
>legend
lol
lmao

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20943447]

>>20943401
kek (based)
>>20943408
I always forget who that is
I think he's some eastern european maybe greek
20th century-ish
ortho related I think

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20943456]

>>20943447
close enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Brentano

[Anonymous No.20943467]

>>20943456
Where are those busts from?

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20943483]

>>20943467
pretty sure it's related to dugin somehow

[Anonymous No.20943816]

>>20942658
>The beginning of the priestly usurpation can be traced back to the declarations of Pope Gelasius I
Didn't know that

[Anonymous No.20944085]

>>20943094
Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power

[Anonymous No.20944128]

>>20942247
Yup, Evola was in the right on this particular issue.

[Anonymous No.20944304]

>>20944085
>Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power

Alright, I like to jump straight into it but do i NEED to read something else before?
Whatever it's 100 pages

[Anonymous No.20944306]

>>20944085
Also thanks =)

[Anonymous No.20944732]

In action the warrior finds himself
In contemplation the priest finds the One

Am I getting it right ?

[Anonymous No.20944745]

>>20942247
That Evola frog pic would look so good on a pizza box.

[Anonymous No.20944799]

>>20944745
What was big E's thoughts on pineapple on pizza?

[Anonymous No.20944822]

>>20944732
>Am I getting it right ?
the Absolute is the real self; "finding yourself" in the sense of discovering one's prowess in fighting has nothing to do with the real self (which is supra-individual and not individual)

[Anonymous No.20945046]

>>20942247
Based Evola.

[Anonymous No.20945062]

>>20944822
That's what a priest would say

[Anonymous No.20945074]

>>20944799
Pineapples are incredibly aristocratic

[Anonymous No.20945571]

>>20945062
The lower cannot become the highest, thats a nonsense feel-good fantasy, if you want to conquer the cycle of birth and death you have to realize or awaken to the truth of the fact that you yourself are that non-corporeal presence which is timeless, complete and raised above all change, if you identify yourself with anything else like the body or some egoistic conception of being a “special hero” you are binding yourself to things which will inevitably decay and fall apart and which cannot escape death. Anything that has a beginning is not immortal and cannot become immortal.

[Anonymous No.20945606]

>>20945571
You should stop thinking

[Anonymous No.20945714]

>>20942596
> but if they both split from the original primordial unity, how can they not be truly one at its core?
If that really was the case, why wouldn’t the revealed Hindu scriptures directly say that? They dont do so afaik. Moreover, wouldnt this splitting just be a normal part of that stage of cyclic existence which is repeated every time that part of the cycle is reached and not some cosmic problem in need of fixing?

>as stated above, if there is no such thing as pure action or pure contemplation, then how can there be any type of real split into separate castes?
All multiplicity, differences etc are not fully real anyway but that doesnt mean that differences within the sphere of practical matters shouldnt be considered as being valid within the bounds to which they refer, so long as one does not make them into more than they are

>My point is not that Brahmins should exist, but that this idea of "Brahmin families" in India is one of an inferior nature compared to that of the Medieval system where the Noble caste supplied the Kshatriya stock and Brahmin stock (often the second or third born sons). It is the more natural system that better reflects the primordial caste system.
Is that really the case though? You would agree that human traits both physical and intellectual are largely inheritable, wouldn’t you? The traits which give a human an edge in combat or a predisposition to being a warrior are different from the traits which give someone an edge in or a predisposition to insight, meditation, spiritual practices in general etc. Despite the existence on history of people who have been both before these two patterns of traits are often opposed to each other; i.e. someone who is patient, cerebral, and prone to deep reflections on the nature of God, soul, death etc is not going to be a top warrior; while someone who is brash, reckless and easily excitable may be a great warrior but a poor yogi. Since traits are largely inheritable, wouldn’t it make more sense for there to be two groups or families each embodying each pattern of traits instead of one group who possesses some of both traits giving birth to both castes since some of these children may end up with a mix of attributes that are neither fully one caste nor the other, and hence not ideal for anything?

[Anonymous No.20945731]

>>20945606
why?

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20946844]

>>20945714
>Moreover, wouldnt this splitting just be a normal part of that stage of cyclic existence which is repeated every time that part of the cycle is reached and not some cosmic problem in need of fixing?
maybe it is just part of the cycle, but if we truly are at the last stages of Kali Yuga, shouldn’t we be looking towards the beginning of the next cycle?
Is the 10th avatar not the symbolic reunification of the Brahmin-Kshatriya castes?
>Brahmin families and Kshatriya families
I agree with most of what you said.
Perhaps the Templar Order is a better example where you had mostly warriors and a handful of priests within a single order. After all, even Guenon says that in its default traditional state, the west would have many Kshatriyas and few Brahmins.
So I don’t think it makes much sense to breed two separate races as high IQ individuals would naturally spawn from the noble caste which would provide the manpower for the Brahmins. Might end up with picrel if one tries to breed a western Brahmin race

Side note - Nietzsche takes it a step further and says that the entire Aryan castes should become one and absorb the Vaishya elements too. A master race and a worker race.

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20946913]

>>20946844
>Side note - Nietzsche takes it a step further and says that the entire Aryan castes should become one and absorb the Vaishya elements too. A master race and a worker race.
Btw on a related note
Check out Evola’s interview of Kalergi
He pretty much says they are in agreement over many things except that Kalergi is too Vaishya oriented

I think it’s in “a traditionalist confronts fascism”

[Anonymous No.20946932]

Does one have to be white to read Evola? Because even though my skin is black as the blackest coal — becoming virtually invisible during night — and I have typical Subsaharan features, such as flat nose, frizzy hair and marked prognathism, the blood of Zulu warriors and Mansa Musa running through my veins, nevertheless, spiritually, I feel like I have an Aryan, even Hyperborean, soul, just like Evola taught in Dottrina della Razza, and occasionally I have flashbacks of my past lives in Hyperborea, one indeed as high priest of Apollo and another as a tamer of wild mastodons for his majesty, the sovereign pontiff’s mastodon knights, and thus evidently, despite presently looking like and African negro, I belong with my Aryan brethren in Europe.

[dago (fed) !deClb9SBC. No.20946941]

>>20946932
O-okay man sure

[Anonymous No.20946960]

>>20946932
Based Aethiop

>Does one have to be white to read Evola?
No, but as part of your initiation you do have to unify Africa with an African nation at least once in EU4

[Anonymous No.20947084]

>>20943186
>I am saying that, because that is exactly what he did.
You haven't given one example though.
>That is the thing, I am not.
You are completely. Late Greece was entirely different to the early periods. Democracies did not even exist in the early period of Greek history, and everything was much more similar politically. So yes, by asserting that the differences were equally as great in the early period and the late, you are confusing the two periods. Which means you yourself are bending history just so you can assert that Evola or someone else is bending history. It's pathetic.
>you simply cannot generalize populations of Free men of Greek city states into "Greek warrior aristocracy" and be done with it
You can in the early period, because things were much simpler.
>Considering word itself is literally "rule of the few"
Oligarchy was defined by Aristotle and Plato as rule of the wealthy according properly to the criterion of wealth. I thought we were using the proper meanings of the words (it is obviously opposed to aristocracy/timocracy depending on how specific you want to be).

[Anonymous No.20947551]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTOVB9FBNtc

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20947670]

>>20945714
I was largely being polemical ITT to foster discussion
I do believe in a single master race caste, but the reality is the pendulum swings back & forth from contemplation to action, depending on the times.
Even Evola admits in Ride the Tiger that it's best not to take action right now, so a more Brahminic approach is more appropriate for the time being.

But there will be a time in the not-too-distant future where action must be taken, and just because one is more oriented towards contemplation doesn't mean he should shy away from it. It is those who take action during this upheaval period who will become the nobles of the coming golden age.

[Anonymous No.20947973]

>>20947084
>You haven't given one example though.
I did. Read my first post again. Funnily enough, this is what always happens when I start talking about this with evolafags. Denial, then I post the example, then they ask for the page, I post the page and then there is either silence or more denial/cope. Once again, you yourself (or other anon, don't know) posted another example of blatant generalization.
>Late Greece was entirely different to the early periods
Yes like I said that two times already. You completely missed the point, or worse you are pretending and in doing so, you are proving the point I made earlier. I have no clue how to put it anymore simpler than that
>you can in early period
Then why you didn't do it and instead just generalized without specification?
>proper meanings of the words
It is literally that word, anon. Rule of the few. It cannot get any simpler and yet you still fail at it. Plato also claimed that aristocracy cannot/should not be hereditary. Then how can Sparta be aristocratic in their view, if two Spartan kings were hereditary positions? We either can use their meaning of the word or more modern one, you need to take your pick. And mind you, Spartan kings' authority was both religious AND military/political. There are even contemporary Greek sources that call Sparta oligarchy or kingdom. I think Aristotle himself called it "generalship", not aristocracy either.
With that being said, this is completely useless detour and only leads to the same faggotry as you did - generalization and oversimplification of things. It is obvious that just like everything else, even Spartan political system developed and changed over time.

[Anonymous No.20948102]

>>20947973
The only thing I can find is this:
>For example in Metaphysics of War he even presents what was probably his own quote as historical Muslim quote, while Quran literally says the opposite.
Which is first of all unsourced, and even if you could find the source, would not be problematic in itself. There are plenty of Muslims who probably said things that might be interpreted as being in conflict with the Quran, outside of literally denying the existence of God.
>You completely missed the point
You didn't make a point. You're trying to argue that a Greek warrior aristocracy did not exist in general because it did not exist in 300BC, even though Greek history is much older than that (and which older works like Iliad and Odyssey give strong testimony to). That's the only point you've tried to make here from what I can see, which is silly.
>It is literally that word, anon.
Only etymologically, I use the philosophers' definitions, A) because they are Greeks themselves; B) because it makes more sense and is more meaningful with the comparative terms. Even in common parlance, when I hear people speaking about "oligarchies", I always notice that they are talking about rule by corrupt, rich men, it is never, not even once, used in the sense of a small, well-bred and competent group of rulers. You could argue this is because of cultural tendencies to despise anything that is not democratic, but even still the word would've thus changed its practical meaning where it becomes synonymous with plutocracy.
>Plato also claimed that aristocracy cannot/should not be hereditary.
So you haven't read Politeia or Laws... Interesting. Or you're confusing the fact that initially the "golden race" are picked out from a scattering and then grouped together through eugenics programs, which amount in the end to a privileged hereditary system.
>Then how can Sparta be aristocratic in their view
Sparta was timocratic according to Plato, and Aristotle's was slightly more refined in terminology, it was mixed but leant heavily towards aristocracy (which he somewhat conflates with timocracy compared to Plato).

[Anonymous No.20948224]

>>20948102
>Which is first of all unsourced
Kek, here we go. Picrel. Latest print of the book (2021 version, I can also post that before you start coping), which has actual annotations made (not just lazy ass Arktos ones) by people who study Evola's writings for years, explain this specific part - it is simply older Evola's quote. He presented his own quote as authentic Islamic religious citation, while ignoring the fact it is immediately contradicted by an actual historical hadith. Directly contradicted, there is no interpretation copeout here. This is symptomatic to his work and exactly what I am talking about. Oversimplification and sometimes straight up literal headcanon.
>You're trying to argue that a Greek warrior aristocracy did not exist in general
Your reading comprehension went from shit to monkey tier. Are you drunk?
>only etymologically
Peak modernist approach to discussion - marginalize every single little thing about the argument into trite non-issues and act like it changes anything.
>which amount in the end to a privileged hereditary system.
What a shitty demagoguery. It is argued directly that hereditary rulership should not exist in Greek understanding of aristocracy, just like proper way of selecting and raising citizens is depicted thoroughly. If you can't see a difference between educating and raising group of people, some of whom may or may not be end up taking power one day and between hereditary power, then there is really no point in debating anything with you.
>it was mixed but leant heavily towards aristocracy
Aristotle called Sparta "generalship", simple as. Isocrates called it oligarchy. Again, this was at some point of history (to not fall into same oversimplification meme as you show), but I have yet to see some authority to claim something else. Again either pick modern or classical meaning and stick with it, don't change it on the go as needed, that leads to contradiction.

[Anonymous No.20948241]

>>20948224
Here is part with the Hadith.
Evola citing headcanon "hadith":
>"Blood of Heroes is closer to God than ink of the scholar."
Actual irl hadith:
>"Ink of scholars is holier than blood of a martyr."
The note says so, cites collector of the hadith (Al-Suyuti) in question and finally finishes that claim in the text of the book is considered Evola's own.

[Anonymous No.20948293]

>>20948224
>Picrel. Latest print of the book
You're presenting an editor's notes as though they were fact. If you look up the saying, you find that its authenticity is considered "weak" and unreliable by Islamic scholars:
>However, for this particular Hadith, it should be noted that it is not fully agreed upon (Mutaffakun Alayhee) by all scholars as authentic due to gaps in its chain of narrators and Al Suyuti himself grades it as 'weak'. This is discussed in detail by Dr. Abdullah Al-faqih of the Islamic Science University of Malaysia.
In fairness, it's possible that he simply misremembered here (I've seen unimportant cases where this has happened very occasionally in his writings, which has zero substantial effect on anything else being said), to state that it is deliberately misrepresented is a stretch. Everyone has these moments, even other totally unrelated thinkers who are never considered to have been attempting to distort anything.
>Your reading comprehension went from shit to monkey tier.
Your claim: "There is no such thing as "Greek warrior aristocracy" "
My counter claim: There was, in a previous time period.
Your counter claim: That doesn't matter, you misunderstood me.
There is nothing to miscomprehend here, you were wrong. A warrior aristocracy does not have to be a specific thing anyway, nor is it. Both the Japanese samurai and Indian kshatriya are "warrior aristocracy", yet in practice they were quite diverse and different.
>marginalize every single little thing
It's not a little thing, it's the substantial meaning of a word, which is important. It really doesn't bother me what you believe here so long as we agree that Sparta was not "rule by criterion of wealth."
>It is argued directly that hereditary rulership should not exist in Greek understanding of aristocracy
The entire rulership is made up of a distinct hereditary class (preserving "the gold" in them), this is hereditary rulership, even if the rulers themselves are picked from amongst that elite group. There are examples of these kinds of monarchies in existence today, like the Papacy, and they occurred many times under the form of "aristocracy" (although this time not exactly in Plato's idealistic sense).
>Aristotle called Sparta "generalship", simple as.
He didn't, go read the Politics again (if you even read it to begin with). Aristotle spent a specific chapter showing how Sparta's constitution is not simple enough to give it a simple term like that, just like Carthage. And generalship (which is what it tends towards), by the way, is translated by some as timocracy, because it implies military rule, like timocracy.
>Again either pick modern or classical meaning
I've been employing for my own use the classical meaning the entire time, what are you on about here?

[Anonymous No.20948319]

>>20948241
>Editor can't find the quote
>cites a different quote that is slightly contradictory
>autistic faggot hinges his whole argument on this and predictably gets BTFO
>getting increasingly emotional with childish personal attacks
>complains about reading comprehension while being an obvious ESL
Stop being a nigger.

[Anonymous No.20948326]

>>20948293
>You're presenting an editor's notes as though they were fact
Because they simply are. There is no better explanation, he simply used his own quote as a historical hadith. People who study Evola their whole lives say this, not just me. The fact hadith itself (like many many others) can have some historical recourse behind it obviously changes nothing, not to mention it is not - again - the point.
>misremembered
I for one agree, since the sentences of hadith simply seem switched. But that is exactly what I have been talking since the start - you can't simply create worldview, especially not a worldview based on a claim it is supra-traditional, on either a flimsy research or generally flimsy approach to basis of pillars of said worldview. Hence my original question.
>Your claim: "There is no such thing as "Greek warrior aristocracy" "
False. I said that using such term in a way you did is oversimplification and generalization, since these equivalents varied wildly across city states and eras. I literally talked about this already. Why are you fucking this up even. Especially since you already said that there were differences there as well. And I already said that all you needed to do was to talk specifically. This is same flimsy approach as above with Evola and his headcanon hadith.
>"rule by criterion of wealth."
We obviously agreed about that since the start. You started with etymology wars, anon.
>this is hereditary rulership
No it is not. Again with the headcanon. This is a theme here.
>He didn't, go read the Politics again
He did: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3%3Asection%3D1285a

>>20948319
>>Editor can't find the quote
Yes.
>slightly contradictory
Lmao. It is literally the opposite.
What a shitty cope.

[Anonymous No.20948345]

>>20948326
>It is literally the opposite.
No it isn't, especially not literally. Your argument hinges on weak evidence, you keep telling others to cope when everyone can see that you're just projecting after getting refuted. At best the most you can say is that he might have misremembered a quote, but he may have also read a translation that was wrong, or maybe what the editor read was incorrect, or maybe other initiates told it to him correctly or incorrectly. Then you try to extrapolate this single flimsy point to represent all of his work, which is absurd.

>headcanon
This is you projecting more btw.
>since these equivalents varied wildly across city states and eras. I literally talked about this already
>these equivalents varied widely
>equivalents
>varied widely
Equivalents vary widely, let me guess, LITERALLY???

I think Evola's work is way over your head lmao.

[Anonymous No.20948363]

>>20948345
>certain archetype ("warrior aristocracy") exists
>while the core stay similar (ie.: free, armed men with political power) other aspects varied wildly
>hence we can't generalize them under one group
>this is somehow too difficult of a concept to grasp for anon

>No it isn't
Evola:
>"Blood of Heroes is closer to God than ink of the scholar."
Hadith:
>"Ink of scholars is holier than blood of a martyr."
>this is not opposite
kek

[Anonymous No.20948382]

>>20948363
Ah yes, that's it! Your concept of "equivalents varying widely" is too high IQ for everyone but you. HAHAHAHA
>an archetype exists
>but is expressed in different forms, while the core remains
>therefor the archetype doesn't exist, we can't generalize
Good argument dude. This is why I said I think Evola is over your head.

And you're misquoting Evola to make your shit-tier, retard "argument" more convincing. Post the actual quotes, word for word, if you want it to be this way.

[Anonymous No.20948419]

>>20948382
>misquoting Evola
Nope. picrel.
>>therefor the archetype doesn't exist
>ignores I literally said the opposite
Have a (you), cretin-kun.
>we can't generalize
Yes. Especially if we are talking about difference between say Athenian free man and Spartan free man. They were both free men (ie.: closest to "warrior aristocracy" there was) yet their lives, duties, privileges and other aspects were very different in most time periods. Hence should not be generalized. I already talked about this. Ask your mother why she drank so much alcohol while she was carrying your sorry ass if you still can't grasp this.

[Anonymous No.20948422]

>>20948326
>. I said that using such term in a way you did is oversimplification and generalization,
It's no more a simplification that the use of "warrior aristocracy" is in general, because this term is clearly a generalization. The point is it is very obviously applies better earlier in Greece's history when the land was simpler and more homogenous. So the only point you can possibly make here is with respect to late Greece being less aristocratic than early Greece, which I agree with, but which you seem to be disputing for very vague reasons, seemingly just to "make a point."
>And I already said that all you needed to do was to talk specifically.
I can give you specific examples: Homeric Sparta, Homeric Achaea, Euboea, Aetolia. They are all more or less warrior kingdoms, which Aristotle referred to as "heroic monarchies." Far fewer differences between them than the later Greek city states, which ended up being divided between popular rule and other types of rule.
>No it is not.
How are rulers being selected from a particular caste of people not hereditary? It is not direct succession, but it is still hereditary, ie belongs to a select family group which is never violated and selected according to merit from within this group. Some European aristocracies utilized this form of succession, as did some Roman emperors.
>politics
This is Aristotle's description of a "generalship" copied directly from your translation:
>the kingship in the Spartan constitution, which is held to be a typical royalty of the kind guided by law, does not carry sovereignty in all matters, though when a king goes on a foreign expedition he is the leader in all matters relating to the war;

[Anonymous No.20948428]

>>20942247
>an entire generation of young men, a few of which could have been good thinkers if properly nurtured, have been memed into reading absolute dogshit like Evola, Guenon, Land and Fisher
Honestly, hilarious, and my I'm quite happy that zoomers have taken themselves out of the competition.

[Anonymous No.20948444]

>>20948422
>very obviously applies
It does not. Which is why I asked you to simply be more specific. That is all.
>How are rulers being selected from a particular caste of people not hereditary?
Funny part about this obfuscation is that the quote I linked you, directly from Aristotle, has been talking about them having their rulers hereditary. He mentions this in connotation to tyranny even.
And no, raising a certain pool of people from various families, educating them in a way and then possibly (or not) selecting few (or not) of them for actual power is nowhere near hereditary way of sharing power. The fact this was done from a limited pool of people (which should be obvious, due to inherent nature of Greek polis) does not change the difference from actual hereditary power, ie.: my (firstborn) son (sons in case of Greece) and no one else. Greek model offers way more moving parts, just like tremendously less determinism. The fact Roman emperors later went around this with adopted children should suffice to illustrate my point from a different angle.
>This is Aristotle's description of a "generalship" copied directly from your translation:
Yes, how that changes anything. You claimed he did not called Sparta generalship, I posted his citation that he did. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.20948446]

>>20948419
How am I ignoring that you said the opposite? I included your original wording. Evola's point is that the "archetype" exists, and you agree with him, but then you disagree because they "take different forms", which means you don't recognize an "archetype", so you're contradicting yourself.
>everyone who disagrees with me is brain damaged
Coming from the guy who says archetypes exist, but we can't generalize, who writes "equivalences vary widely" and doesn't see anything wrong with it...

[Anonymous No.20948470]

>>20948444
Ok so family lineages determining caste is not a hereditary transmission of power. Very high IQ discord tranny posts itt, from mr. "equivalences vary widely".

[Anonymous No.20948488]

>>20948446
>Evola's point is that the "archetype" exists
It was not Evola's point, it was other anon's point.
>but then you disagree because they "take different forms"
Soldier existed in classical Greece and soldier exists now. Their lives, duties, privileges, etc. are however wildly different. Yet they exist. There is no contradiction. Similarly, Spartan free man lead very different life from Athenian free man. Yet they both - as archetypes - existed, during same time even. Which is why we can't simply throw around "Greek warrior aristocracy" as some unified group WITHOUT also specifying time period and their origin.
I literally can't put it any simpler. I don't think it is even possible in English. The fact you then still fuck this up tells me you are either complete fucking imbecile or dishonest fucktard who pretends to misunderstand. Don't know which is worse. The fact you are so very quick to just stop talking about an obvious lie (about "misquoting" Evola) you tried pushing above is another thing.

>>20948470
I already explained why. It is not my fault your reading comprehension sucks.
>muh discord troons out of nowhere
>but I am not brain damaged
lel

[Anonymous No.20948516]

>>20948488
>I already explained why. It is not my fault your reading comprehension sucks
My reading comprehension is great, your arguments are just idiotic. You "explained" why families passing power on to their offspring (hereditary caste system) is actually not a hereditary transmission of power. That just means you're at odds with reality, you are contradicting it. Like when you say "equivalences vary widely", a blatant contradiction, really totally nonsensical. Similar to how you say the archetype exists, but then you criticize Evola for identifying the archetypes. You're arguing against reality, it is bizarre.

And I didn't call you a discord tranny for no reason. From your writing style and weird opposition/contradiction of obvious reality I would say that there is a high chance of you arguing on discord all day and being a tranny, you seem like the "archetype".

[Anonymous No.20948570]

Kek bump

[Anonymous No.20948585]

>>20948516
>you are at odds with reality
>can't even produce single argument that is not a strawman or screeching about trannies
>simply ignores the rest
Yes yes anon, maybe taking your medication would help.

[Anonymous No.20948591]

>>20942414
Germans and their fucking obsession with haiders. Fred was the dragonlord of the 19th century

[Anonymous No.20948735]

Might be the most based real person pepe I’ve ever seen

[Anonymous No.20948807]

>>20942505
Imagine believing this screencap is legit.

[Anonymous No.20949393]

>>20948363
>Hadith
>"Ink of scholars is holier than blood of a martyr."
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.20949466]

>>20949393
Source was posted repeatedly, including on photos directly from books and with name of a person who collected that hadith.

14582 - يُوزَنُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ مِدَادُ الْعُلَمَاءِ وَدَمُ الشُّهَدَاءِ فَيَرْجَحُ مِدَادُ الْعُلَمَاءِ عَلَى دَمِ الشُّهَدَاءِ
--------
ص14582 - كتاب الجامع الصغير وزيادته - - المكتبة الشاملة الحديثة

translated by google as:
>"On the Day of Resurrection the ink of the scholars and the blood of the martyrs will be weighed, so the ink of the scholars will outweigh the blood of the martyrs"

https://al-maktaba.org/book/21659/14582#p1

[Anonymous No.20949739]

>>20949466
that doesn't mean it's holier. what it means is that a bunch of scholars will have talked a whole lot but very few people will have actually been martyrs in the name of Allah

[Anonymous No.20949758]

>>20949739
I don't really care since that was never a point of debate at any time.