/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6372010]

>tfw no Evola reading reactionary gf

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6372015]

;_;

[Anonymous No.6372021]

I'm happy you're sad.

Friendly reminder that Goebbels murdered his children.

[Anonymous No.6372025]

>>6372021
Better than the alternative at least

[Anonymous No.6372031]

>>6372025
Keep shilling for your twelve year Reich. They've only been dead for seven decades.

[Anonymous No.6372035]

>>6372015
this guy is so beta

[Anonymous No.6372038]

>tfw no original content

>>6372025
his children murdering Goebbels?

[Anonymous No.6372075]

>>6372031
Keep shilling for communist shitholes. I'm sure one of them will work out

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6372080]

>>6372075

If you get redpilled by someone who got redpilled by moldbug is there a special term for that? the bug guy is now your grandpill or something?

[Anonymous No.6372088]

Feudal society was one of the most totalitarian societies in existence, which is why it is so easily displayed in a positive light.

Why anyone would support it is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.6372090]

>>6372080
What the fuck are you even talking about

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6372097]

>>6372090

That is right, I saw the true reality of the correctness of scientific racism and the devilish anti-anime Anita conspiracy and the need for a powerful currency backed by space mined bitcoins when Mencius Moldbug dunked me in the trash alongside his utterly loathsome self, achieving dark enlightenment as we mutually engorged ourselves on industrial refuse

[Anonymous No.6372101]

>>6372088
Because everyone knew his place there. There were no Elliot Rogers/polfags/r9kfags roaming around thinking they deserved something they didn't have. People were told from birth to be happy with their lot in life, to renounce personal desires and deny themselves, and they were happy. People accept the cards dealt to them by God and the harshness of life and tried to be content with it.

That is much better than what we have today.

[Anonymous No.6372107]

How to get Goebbels bf

[Anonymous No.6372120]

>>6372010
>>6372021
>>6372025
>>6372031
>>6372075
I swear to god we had this exact same thread with these exact same replies the other day

[Anonymous No.6372130]

>>6372101
>People accept the cards dealt to them by God and the harshness of life and tried to be content with it.

No they didn't. Why the fuck do you think it changed? People were unhappy with it and changed it.

>>6372120
There was such a thread.

[Anonymous No.6372135]

>>6372101
Except they clearly weren't happy. There are thousands of instances of revolts and revolutions.

But aside from that, there's no way to determine how the average commoner felt, as they had no real way to record their opinions or thoughts for prosperity. The only people who could were the well-off and powerful and it's obvious they were unlikely to complain, and they certainly would not depict their subjects as complaining if they cared about their opinions at all.

[Anonymous No.6372145]

>>6372135
They should have just accepted their lot in life as the priests told them.

[Anonymous No.6372152]

>>6372145
Ok, bootlicker.

[Anonymous No.6372573]

>>6372031
Keep shilling for your 3 years touring Saviour. He has been dead for more than two millenia

[Anonymous No.6372591]

Any real traditionalist knows Evola was a hack. I don't know why he became a meme here when Guenon/Schuon/Coomaraswamy/even the modern Nasr has written much better shit.

[Anonymous No.6372599]

>>6372010
Evola is exclusively for lonely kissless, handholdless male virgins.

[Anonymous No.6372606]

>>6372599
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.6372616]

>>6372606

If you want pussy you have to drop the reactionary ideology and traditionalist worship sorry sport. the women who are into the same things you are, are usually insane

Unless you have a death wish consider, being reasonable?

[Anonymous No.6372754]

>tfw reading Eliade's Shamanism and taking paychedelics with new age fascist traditionalist tantric yogini girlfriend

[Anonymous No.6372770]

>>6372754
Pretty cool breh

[Anonymous No.6372780]

>women
>reactionary

[Anonymous No.6372781]

>>6372616
A strong man can convert a woman though

[Anonymous No.6372787]

>>6372754
It's satisfying to look someone up on wikipedia and be like "Oh what a relief, they're dead".

[Anonymous No.6372790]

>>6372787
Why?

[Anonymous No.6372793]

>>6372781
>A strong man can convert a woman though

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.6372797]

>>6372770
She wants a goddess-centered society tho so idk if she would like Evola.

[Anonymous No.6372825]

>>6372793
>strong ind. wymn pwr!

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6372836]

>>6372781

[Anonymous No.6372840]

>>6372836
Stop this. What are you trying to achieve?

[SYK FUK RUKUS No.6372842]

>>6372591

Evola is genre fiction of philosophy. His laughable attempts at doing philosophical anthropology are worryingly similar to what all these lunatic afrocentric movements are doing right now. Poor to awful scholarship, creating pseudo-academic interpretation of history etc. etc. His only reedeming quality is the fact that during his lifetime there were no scientific consensus on these issues he felt he had authority to write about.

Traditionalists should read Hobbes, Burke, Oakeshott, Leo Strauss, Berkeley, Kierkegaard's political essays. The list goes on. But no, they insist on reading Evola because his writing style is supposedly captivating. Eh.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6372843]

>>6372840

[Anonymous No.6372865]

>>6372088
>>6372591
>>6372599
>>6372842
>I don't like Evola

[Anonymous No.6372875]

>>6372865
God doesn't exist, bud.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6372882]

>>6372865

how does liking any of these traditionalist penis fuckers not make you a neckbeard

[Anonymous No.6372889]

Traditionalism is such an hypocritical and boring way to look at life.

[Anonymous No.6372906]

>>6372889
>hurry durr Marxism I'd the only legitimate school of thought everyone else is just stupid

[Anonymous No.6372908]

>>6372906

I'm going to be controversial and say both can coexist

[SYK FUK RUKUS No.6372909]

>>6372865

I don't like Evola precisely because he makes the system of thought he adheres to look bad. It's really this simple. You have amazing, academically acclaimed philosophers that have written a lot of material you could learn from on traditionalism, but you choose to read a sub-par author that I have doubts can be even called a philosopher rather than Oakeshott, L.Strauss or Berkeley. Your movement went in a wrong direction.

[Anonymous No.6372915]

>>6372906
Legitimacy, huh?

>>6372908
Sure, Marx never actually talked about ethics. You can have a materialist outlook on life and yet be a traditionalist retard by free choice.

[Anonymous No.6372917]

>>6372908
They can't coexist but they should both be judged fairly and be taken on their own merits.

[Anonymous No.6372923]

>>6372088

Totalitarianism is defined by large bureaucratic states that get involved in the every day activity of people, everything is monitered, democratic idealism is high where people believe in societies within nations as organic units that all defer back to a popular dictator.

Feudalism was based on personal relationships and loose power structures that were mostly informal, with individual lords having just as much say over his what generally goes on in his land as your average peasant man would be lord of his household. Government was extremely limited since it was just a King/Prince/Lord and few advisers rather than a large bureaucratic body with tons of sub sections, and often had little it could say or do in terms of controlling people on the edges of the kingdom because it would take them a long time to even contact people on the outskirts, so the kind of micromanagement of the whole population from the center that was characteristic of Totalitarianism was impossible.

Basically, you couldn't be more wrong. Totalitarianism is the logical outcome of democracy, which is a revolt against feudal monarchy.

[Anonymous No.6372940]

>>6372908

True. Look at North Korea. Or Pol Pot.

[Anonymous No.6372945]

>>6372917
Never mind I misread your post

[Anonymous No.6372946]

>>6372842

" Poor to awful scholarship"
He was extremely well read actually if you check out the shear volume of works he cites over his career. He's also not a Philosopher, nor a Historian, nor does he ever claim to be. He's doing Religious Studies, with a few limited exceptions. He also never claimed that he was doing proper history, he just used what he found in the literature to elucidate his spiritual views, he never makes any attempt at temporal orientation because he is doing a spiritual ontology, not a historical or anthropological account, but you would actually have to read Revolt Against The Modern World to know that.

>>6372909

Also you clearly don't know much about this topic because while the writers you list are good, their positions are not substituteble for Evola's, unlike thinkers like Guenon who are. "traditionalism" is not " Traditionalism" the later is temporally oriented and based on reverence for the past, the later is looking at everything through the lense of the perennial spirituality that Guenon layed out, it is explicitly atemporal and not a historical kind of doctrine.

[Anonymous No.6372962]

>>6372946
Jesus Christ learn how to spell.

[SYK FUK RUKUS No.6373023]

>>6372946

>he just used what he found in the literature to elucidate his spiritual views

Fair enough, however what he found in literature and conclusions he's drawn from it are simply invalid. This kind of scholarship is poor (the awful part was directed at contemporary afrocentric movements), because he attempts to use flawed interpretation of history to lay out his spiritual position. If the foundation he builds upon is anthropologically wrong and let's face it - it is then how does that elucidate his spiritual position in any coherent way.

>you clearly don't know much about this topic... their positions are not substituteble for Evola's

I listed political philosophers or philosophers who have in their works a pol phil material of some sort. The notion that "traditionalism" of these authors is a simple adherence to the past is dead wrong. Traditionalism of Hobbes for instance is not a simple reverence of past forms of governance. His whole system of thought is based on the notion that nature of mankind, human political relations and power dynamics in society themselves force people into submission to traditional forms of authority. This is not a perennial philosophy that links various dimensions of philosophy into one, traditionalist doctrine, but it's much more than simple reverence of the past. Hobbes lies out a traditionalist imperative for politics - natural law which constitutes any political actions of conservative/traditionalist politics. It's as much a system of the past as one of the future, because the Hobbes' imperative applies universally. You find the same description in Tocqueville's or Kirk's or Strauss' works that frame conservatism/traditionalism as universally applying political philosophy, not just hanging on to the past. I understand that Evola's perennial philosophy tries to connect multiple realms of philosophy into one doctrine, but it's a proven failure. Marxists tried doing same, saturating other domains of thought with your political agenda is devastating.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373025]

Hey I have an idea.

How about, you just make the good decision not to be traditionalists.

[Anonymous No.6373027]

>>6372962

There were a few mistakes because I posted without checking the post over, but ok I'll fix it just for you.

>Also you clearly don't know much about this topic because while the writers you list are good, their works are not ones that you could replace Evola's works with since their positions are different. A thinker like Guenon would be more suitable for that. "traditionalism" is not " Traditionalism" the former is temporally oriented and based on reverence for the past, the later is looking at everything through the lens of the perennial spirituality that Guenon posited, it is explicitly atemporal and not a historical kind of doctrine.

[Anonymous No.6373039]

>>6373027
Don't forget "sheer" in place of "shear."

I still don't agree with you but I'll admit I was being petty.

[Anonymous No.6373077]

>>6373025
How about you make the good decision to broaden your horizons

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373088]

>>6373077

I did. That's why I'm an anarchist now.

[Anonymous No.6373091]

>>6373023

The anthropological bits are pretty irrelevant honestly, he openly states that he takes mythology which he knows is not literally true to be just as valuable as the stuff he takes to be literally true. The ideas expressed are all that really matters, it's mainly about the masculine/feminine , solar/lunar, vegetative/heroic conflict of human existence that is his focus.

I didn't mean to say that they only posited adherence to the past, or that we could reduce it all to that, but that they all valued historical traditions and past historical periods in their understanding insofar as it was actually history and not just a bank for ideas. Even if Evola's viewpoint was never actual in history( it was'nt), the whole point is that he believes that it has ontological priority. The two views are quite divergent.

It's not really even combining multiple philosophies( which I take as having a rational foundation, which Evola doesn't bother with) in one as much as it is simply finding that core of spiritual experience that is common to all "higher" types of people, reading through the lines and getting back to an ontologically primordial tradition. How is it a proven failure ? We can maybe charge him with reductionism, but the commonalities he shows between divergent religion traditions are quite valid, even if Guenon did it better.

I think the issue is Evolians, who take Evola as some guru for conservative political thought that fits in with nationalism or bourgois conservatism. He wrote one (fairly good but not great) political work and then called it a failure and abandoned politics. Evola as a thinker is actually pretty subversive and overly individualistic in his own way, it makes his real positions a bad fit for most conservatives. His influence from Nietzsche never really was abandoned and he is closer to an "aristocratic beatnik" than anyone who could ever follow a political agenda.

>>6373025
Because leftism has been proven to be entirely incoherent at this point( whether it be classical liberalism, or any of the forms of democratic totalitarianism) and had some pretty bad presuppositions to start with. Though I just call myself a Monarchist and try to avoid ideologically loaded labels.

[Anonymous No.6373104]

>>6373025
Yes. Instead everyone should be a blad-headed pedophile bug-chaser.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373112]

>>6373104

You mean your mom?

[Anonymous No.6373118]

>>6373112
Please leave tripfag. You embarrass your "side."

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373130]

>implying nationalists haven't embarrassed themselves past academic irrelevance

What is there to lose?

[Anonymous No.6373131]

>tfw no short haired androgynous qt 3.14 gf

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373140]

>>6373131

this

[Anonymous No.6373155]

>>6373140
>y-you want to explore some s-secondhand b-bookshops, anon-kun?

[Anonymous No.6373167]

>>6373155
Don't bring people like that into my bookstores.

[Anonymous No.6373172]

>>6373167
>anon, pls

[Anonymous No.6373179]

>>6373167
imagine how much they'd squee over a bookshop with cats living in it

[Anonymous No.6373213]

>>6372010
I find it so interesting how a group of autists and mentally unstable people were able to rise to power and nearly took over the world.

[Penelope !dgOyi90UNA No.6373220]

>tfw no Hegel reading bf

[Anonymous No.6373232]

>>6373220
post pics and I'll give it a shot :3
>>6373213
just look at the nuts running America today

[Anonymous No.6373233]

>>6373213
>nearly took over the world
You mean nearly took over most of one very small continent before getting their shit stomped in.

Now Genghis Khan, that mongoloid almost took over the world.

[Anonymous No.6373245]

>>6373213
>yfw the beta uprising failed

[Anonymous No.6373254]

>>6373245

Too bad their propaganda techniques didn't die with them, instead they've been perfected since then by modern states.

[Anonymous No.6373260]

>>6373245
their legacy lives on

[Anonymous No.6373261]

>>6373179
>imagine how much they'd squee over a bookshop with cats living in it

D-doesn't everyone do this?

[Anonymous No.6373264]

>>6373254
one in particular

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373265]

>>6373260

>the long legged mack daddy

Is this some sort of folksy way of saying the Antichrist?

[Anonymous No.6373267]

>>6373260
Top left. Never, never have I seen the phrase "shit eating grin" so perfectly epitomized.

[Anonymous No.6373268]

>>6373261
There's a tea shop by my block where you can read, drink and pet the roaming cats.

Chill place. Also a lot of hot chicks.

[Anonymous No.6373271]

>>6373261
I exclusively order my books online so I don't have to put up with the twee small bookshop people.

[Anonymous No.6373277]

>>6373271
>not browsing and finding rare and unusual finds
I once found a copy of Medea signed by 3 of the contributing authors for $25

[Anonymous No.6373286]

To be honest, I'd feel uncomfortable with a right-wing gf. Left-wing politics fit better with female nature.

[Anonymous No.6373289]

>>6373233

When you stop to think about it, nobody even came close from taking over the world. The British or Mongol Empires were nothing compared to what a world-sized empire would be.

The endeavour is so huge that all the great men in history acomplished nothing compared to what they set out to. Hitler, Genghis, Wilhelm, Napoleon, Mao. They've all failed. We are still waiting for that one man who will put all of us under his boots and take over. It's such a hard thing to do that we might aswell be waiting forever.

Just some food for thought.

[Anonymous No.6373297]

>>6373277
This.
Plus, I live in a shitty little river town full of antique stores with ignorant, bored house-wife owners. I regularly snag 120-140 year old books in great condition for $5-10 because some hillbillies great grandfather died and they hocked everything he owned for drug money and the proprietors just stuck it with all the beat-to-shit 20's and 30's reference books and old ass grammar school reading companions.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373302]

>>6373286

Same goes with rightist teenagers.

[Anonymous No.6373305]

>>6373289
Most people never took over the world proper because the endeavor has never really been worth the effort. Who the fuck wants to take over all of Africa and South/Latin America? Steal the breadbasket like Genghis or Alexander or the British did, and you get all the gain with none of the downside.

[Anonymous No.6373307]

>>6373289
In a modern context taking over the world through military means isn't feasible, because we have the capability to end all life on earth.

Being able to dominate the world politically, economically, and culturally seems the goal now.

[Anonymous No.6373315]

>>6373289
None of those people wanted to take over the world

[Anonymous No.6373320]

>>6373265
That's White people being White. They can't really think- it's the recessive genes, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.6373323]

>>6373286
Left wing people are just fucking annoying though, I have never once heard a right wing person start spouting bullshit for no reason over an innocuous comment, I never even know they're right wing unless the subject comes up, whereas left wing people are fucking constantly talking about their retarded politics. I'm more left-wing than I am right-wing but jesus christ I can't stand the way they constantly sermonize, you'd think they were fucking evangelicals.

[Anonymous No.6373330]

>>6373286
>being sexist

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373331]

>>6373323

>I have never once heard a right wing person start spouting bullshit for no reason over an innocuous comment

[Anonymous No.6373334]

>>6373323
Then you, my friend, must not live in the bible belt.

[Anonymous No.6373335]

>>6373302
I don't know if you are a smart person who is trolling or if you are just dumb.

[Anonymous No.6373342]

>>6373302
Goddamn you really are the worst tripfag

Stop posting

[Anonymous No.6373343]

>>6373323
That's because you are a leftist and only interact with other leftists, obviously.

[Anonymous No.6373344]

>>6373323

[Anonymous No.6373345]

>>6373331
>I have never once heard a right wing person start spouting bullshit for no reason over an innocuous comment

[Anonymous No.6373353]

>>6373323
>I have never once heard a right wing person start spouting bullshit for no reason over an innocuous comment
you haven't spoken to many, these days everything is a plot to punish them for being white and male

[Anonymous No.6373358]

>>6373323
>I have never once heard a right wing person start spouting bullshit for no reason over an innocuous comment

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6373364]

>>6373335
>>6373342

They weird me out.

[Anonymous No.6373370]

>>6373286
>w-we'll s-sm-smash the s-state t-to-together anon :3

[Anonymous No.6373433]

>>6373220
I've read the phenomenology and the science of logic. Post contact info

[Anonymous No.6373445]

Evola was not only a scholar but a practitioner of ancient religions. His is a universalist gnostic position and is often misunderstood. To be honest, he would have supported the hippies so right-wingers are wrong to use him.

[Anonymous No.6373463]

>>6373358
>tfw we will never round up the right wingers and throw them in the gulag

[Anonymous No.6373470]

>>6373370
Not sure if trap...

[Anonymous No.6373479]

>>6373470
>thats half the fun of the twee indie hipster androgynous qt 3.14 with short hair

[Anonymous No.6373521]

I swear, this Foucault faggot's the whoriest, most painful trip I've seen in a while.

[Anonymous No.6373526]

>>6373479
would hold hand and listen to water as we both lay on an old dock on a rural maine night/10

[Anonymous No.6373535]

>>6373526
>y-you too

[Anonymous No.6373635]

>>6372865
>not liking a second rate reactionary that didn't even have an internally consistent worldview makes you fedora

Like, if Nietzsche is too overblown for you go at least go for Carl Schmidt or something before pulling out writers better stacked with Hermes Trismegistus than the intellectual canon

[Anonymous No.6373658]

>>6373521
he's new, in a week or two he'll realize all threads about a topic are identical and there's no need to explain all your ideas as soon as you can.

[Anonymous No.6373701]

>>6373635
I like reading Hermes Trimestigus :c