Traditionalism

Many people here claim to be "traditionalists".

What the fuck is traditionalism?

Are people here claiming to have slogged through Evola and then adopted his philosophy as their own?

...

Traditionalism in political point of wiew means to undo the french revolution of classless society, and to go back to roots of kingdomlike states.

Evola is pretty popular here yes, or at least it was. Haven't seen an Evola thread in a while.

Were people knowledgeable or just talking shit?

How do Monarchy and rigid class structures/serfdom benefit edge-lords?

They were honestly the most intelligent threads on Sup Forums at the time. It was kind of scary honestly. There was also a fair share of images like so really it was a mixed bag.

If you'd actually read Evola you'd know that he equating his philosophy with traditionalism is absurd, traditionalism amounts to willfully acknowledging the power and significance of traditional institutions within society and within the spiritual, mental, and physical lives of men and literally nothing more than this. Millions of people who never heard of Evola embrace this mindset every day and did even before Evola was born.

I unfollwed @WrathOfGnon this morning, I have a hard time taking Internet monarchism seriously now that Trump has been elected.

That's a bad description of Evola. He saw those kingdomlike states as merely traditional forms. His idea of Tradition is one that approaches a metaphysical perfection, like the concept of Truth.

>images
I'm not in a mood to write an essey on Evola. But this images explains a lot.

*nothing* more than that?
This is the consensus or is it really so self-evident from reading Evola that the fetishization or the aesthetics of linking traditionalism with fascism and monarchism (Evola was an aristocrat and promoted aristocracy) is the natural result of acknowledging traditional institutions etc as you suggest?

every "RadTrad" is a working class autistic neet who reads Evola
it's pathetic
they are not the proper caste at all

This sounds more like what I have picked up from my (admittedly back-of-the-book) perusal of the subject. Hence the tracing of the movement to Guénon Et al.
His writing style makes me dizzy.

I don't really understand the question you're asking.
I'm offering you a definition of traditionalism, which is something that Evola doesn't even claim to be originating in his work.
Other thinkers of his ilk, such as Guenon, also aren't claiming to be originating this way of thinking.
Again, I don't understand the essence of your question.
If you're implying that traditionalists are by definition opposed to democracy, then I guess that begs the question of whether or not there are democratic or republican traditions.
I really don't think I suggested what you think I suggested.

This is Kali Yuga by Evola. So we do not know what is the Truth. But I believe that realization in matery of truth in political point of wiew is autoritarian kingdomlike state.

Interesting. But many do seem to consciously adopt the "minion" or "lowly subject" reverence for a God-king figure.
Tongue in cheek, sure, but it does seem to come naturally to some..

Do you feel like your armchair psychoanalysis is serving a purpose, or are you just leafposting?

It seemed to me you were offering a euphamism of traditionalism as "merely x" (against most histories of it) and denying a connection to Evola, whereas it seems pretty clear that the linking/fetishizing of traditionalism with fascism and aristocracy and so on which accompanies it's mention quite often (on here for example) is at least on the surface traceable to Evola.

If you don't understand what Im asking/or my response, I can't do a better job of clarifying than this. Sorry.

A) suck my balls,
B) its a statement of fact, not analysis. People often openly praise Trump for example as "God-king". No judgement from me. If anything it authenticates claims to being traditionalist among those who are not from the aristocracy. It was a direct response to the person I responded to.

C) suck my balls.

Can someone give me a short and ugly summary of Evola?

>denying a connection to Evola
Did you even read my post? You must have bad reading comprehension; I was pointing out that what Evola was talking about wasn't something that started with him. How could I be denying a connection if I'm admitting that he talked about it?
>A & C
You mean your branch?
>B) its a statement of fact, not analysis
Statements of fact are only useful in the context of analysis. We are clearly trying to analyze traditionalism. Please don't try to imply that you were changing the subject.

t. someone with a philosophy degree from an analytic philosophy department
The modern world is largely a mistaken attempt to exist according to simply false principles and gods, like equality and economic doctrines. The world is in a steady and unstoppable state of spiritual decline. Most people are unable to escape from this decline and rise to the high standards that were held in the premodern and ancient worlds. Some are, and ought to view themselves as being superior to the majority. This superiority gives them justification in laying claim to the practices and principles of the various perennial traditions of the world (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc.) for their own use in rising above the masses actually and not merely potentially.