Sup Forums books thread

Is pic related the best place to start with Evola?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs
youtube.com/watch?v=eiZ7W4X9JCM
amazon.com/Web-Debt-Shocking-Truth-System/dp/0983330859
youtube.com/watch?v=eniuwal6GBQ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

r8

8/10

Reasonable, reasonable. Always had the impression that modern reactionary lit like Fighting For The Essence are meme books tbqh.

The Cosmic Conspiracy is good for young people to read... Really puts the zap on your map

This book was really good. It made me basically feel extremely depressed though. Its all right, but at the end of it I felt like the message was 'theres no hope in anything at all'. Just isolate yourself mentally and die

they're nice motivational books for the sake of keeping yourself inspired

No. It might even be the worst.

"Revolt Against the Modern World" is all you really need when it comes to Evola.

I'm reading that right now

esoteric/10

try hermetic traditions also by Evola

I would recommend learning about Buddhism and Hinduism before reading Evola.

not buddhism, but taoism(tao-te-ching will do) and paganism in generally as reflection of hinduisam of all indo-europeans(maybe Vedas will do with that)

You read "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War"

Would be especially great to read for Brits desu

Horrendous. Only good ones are White Identity, The Bell Curve, and the classics.

Great book.

Horrendous as well.

>lolbertarian telling me about my tastes

>greek philosophy is horrendous

It's where I started. It's also where I ended so possibly a bad choice. Cover is swag nonetheless.

...

read my post again, I exempted the classics.

>thinks Hoppe "Physical Removal of Democrats and Communists" is lolbertarian

Sup Forums should really allow pdfs to be uploaded

just get a mega link

youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs

You can find pdfs online to all these books easily though, takes two minutes max

yes. then get savitri devi the lighting and the sun

It'd be more convenient than posting covers of books though
Most other image boards allow it

No. Buddhism reflects Evolas philosophy better than other spiritual systems, especially Zen Buddhism although that has a lot of Taoist influence. Paganism is irrelevant aside from its mythology. Alchemy is a far more relevant western tradition.

youtube.com/watch?v=eiZ7W4X9JCM

Get these lad

>Ride the Tiger
>The Path of Cinnabar
>Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times
>Crisis of the Modern World
>For My Legionaries

I have for my legionaries, and have read it, absolutely amazing book, the rest are on my wishlist, great taste user

It's bretty good. Metaphysics of War is also a great start because you can finish it in like one or two sittings and its an excellent read.

This is relevant to my interests
Pic related

I would drink with ya lad

Alcohol is degenerate lad.

But thanks anyway famalam

OP stop reading drivel pls it's bad for you.

Can someone who read Evola give a rapid summation on his criticism of Fascism?

I haven't read it but a friend of mine who has told me it's basically:

"Fascism is bad because it's not right wing enough"

What did he mean by not right wing enough though?

That's a legit quote

judging by what I've read from Revolt Against the Modern World, I'd assume he means that it doesn't inherently support traditionalism and the hierarchy (caste system) therefore it isn't perfect.

>In From the Other Shore, a collection of essays and dialogue written by Alexander Herzen between 1847 and 1851, the radical Russian journalist imagines a dialogue between a believer in human freedom and a skeptic who judges humans by their behaviors rather than by their professed ideals. To the surprise of the believer, the skeptic quotes Rousseau's dictum, "Man is born to be free -- and is everywhere in chains!" But the skeptic does so only in order to mock Rousseau's rousing declaration: "I see in it a violation of history and contempt for facts. I find that intolerable. Such caprice offends me. Besides, it is a dangerous procedure to state, a priori, as a fact, what is really the crux of the problem. What would you say to a man who, nodding his head sadly, remarked that "Fish are born to fly -- but everywhere they swim!"?

>The skeptic goes on to present the argument of the "ichthyophil", who believes that human beings long to be free:

>First of all he will point out to you that the skeleton of a fish clearly shows a tendency to develop the extremities into legs and wings. He will then show you perfectly useless little bones that are a hint of the bone of a leg or a wing. Then he will refer to flying fish, which prove, in fact, that fishkind not only aspires to fly, but also can do so on occasion. Having said all this in reply, he will be justified in asking you, in his turn, why you do not demand from Rousseau a justification for his statement that man must be free, seeing that he is always in chains. Why does everything else exist as it ought to exist, whereas with man, it is the opposite.

>The question of the skeptic -- a stand-in for Herzen himself -- has yet to be answered.

All right thanks

I actually felt a tinge of sadness when reading Evola. He's like Nietzsche in that regard.
They died alone.

I think Evola was more fine than Nietzsche since he saw himself as a kind of historical anomaly born in the wrong time, destined to keep the fire of tradition alive among those who saw things like him.

He was "born in the wrong generation."

Interesting

...

I understand your point but then I see this face.

amazon.com/Web-Debt-Shocking-Truth-System/dp/0983330859

Anyone read this? Is it redpilled?

It's useless to post a book cover lest you also post a quote to accompany it. I wanna teach the goold people of Sup Forums how to read. (I myself don't know, but I have some kind of structure.)

>>"Seen from a broad historical perspective, historicism undermined the perennial search in Western philosophy to find transcendent justifications for social, political and moral values, i.e., the endeavor to give these values some universal and necessary validity, some support or sanction outside or beyond their own specific social and cultural context. Such justifications could be straightforwardly religious viz., divine providence or supernatural revelation; but they could also be thoroughly secular, viz., natural law or human reason. In either case, historicism questioned their validity."

looks interesting, bookmarked it and might pick it up

Evola is old news, this is the future. Had to stop and really think after every paragraph.

...

redpill me on this book

>Human customs, activities, forms of life, art, ideas, were (and must be) of value to men not in terms of timeless criteria, applicable to all men and societies, irrespective of time and place, as the French lumières taught, but because they were their own, expressions of their local, regional, national life, and spoke to them as they could speak to no other human group. [...]

>Universalism, by reducing everything to the lowest common denominator which applies to all men at all times, drained both lives and ideals of that specific content which alone gave them point. Hence Herder’s implacable crusade against French universalism, and his concept and glorification of individual cultures – Indian, Chinese, Norse, Hebrew – and his hatred of the great levellers, Caesar and Charlemagne, Romans, Christian knights, British empire-builders and missionaries, who eliminated native cultures and replaced them with their own, historically, and therefore spiritually, foreign and oppressive to their victims. Herder and his disciples believed in the peaceful coexistence of a rich multiplicity and variety of national forms of life, the more diverse the better. Under the impact of the French revolutionary and Napoleonic invasions, cultural or spiritual autonomy, for which Herder had originally pleaded, turned into embittered and aggressive nationalist self-assertion.

9/10
needs more non-degenerate fiction

how's this?

Fucking great senpai.

Currently reading this.

Cordeanu, Probably the most underrated leader during the post WWI time period.

Thread theme: youtube.com/watch?v=eniuwal6GBQ

I'll recommend this since no one else has.

>For Marx, as for Lenin and all of Marx's followers, the historical forms of human identity, as they are expressed in inherited cultures' traditions and folkways, are in no way to be taken as authentic expressions of human nature and creativity. Instead, all the forms of life in which human beings have hitherto found their identities are condemned as contingencies, shadows cast by underlying structures of production. In this reductionist perspective, all the varied cultural achievements of mankind are epiphenomena, transitory reflections of changes in the economic base of human society. With this much (or little) we are all familiar. But the positive, and mythological aspect of Marxian historical materialism, is less obvious, and less commonly commented upon. It is the Marxian conception of true or essential human nature as being hidden and submerged, thwarted and mutilated by all the historic forms in which human beings have ever lived.

>Now in the real world of human history, men are not abstract instances of the human species, but articulators of definite was of life that reflect their circumstances and at once express and confer on them a distinctive identity. Marxian Communism, by contrast, seeks to expunge the cultural inheritances of mankind, and thereby also to roll back the most powerful achievements of the modern world in the interests of a myths entity -- that of universal humanity.

Wait a second, I am reading Ride the Tiger right now, and I feel like it's a fantastic book for people who've let academia drag them into a nihilistic/existentialist maze.

I basically read a ton of Sartre, Heidegger, etc, and fell into the mindset of absolute aimlessness. That shit was the death of the modern era, and preceded so many terrible aspects of society. And to make it worse, it's not WRONG. If it was wrong, it'd be easier to disregard and move on with your life. But it isn't. And so Evola comes along and effectively says "well, this body of work is not garbage, but here's the exit from the maze it's trapped you in." And even better, he helps destroy the illusion of the 'great man' set adrift by the meaninglessness of it all. The aloof, academic, absurdist man who has understood all too much, and now sees no point.

I like Ride the Tiger. It's a great read for anyone who's been brainwashed by academia.

lol i saw this fiasco on infinity
how is it going?
you could move to another perm board chan if the mod refuses to backdown

bhagavad gita
hatha yoga pradipika

...

I hate how these threads just die.

I'm still here, these are good reads.

People really have to start taking notes of the important concepts and thesis in any given thing they read, even if they disagree with whatever is said in the text. But the problem is that people do not have a structured way of doing this. They do not know what to look for and to be quite honest it seems to me as though I have never seen a proper technique of reading being laid out somewhere.

Adler's "How to read a book" seems to me to be unsatisfactory, though I don't know in what way. (I would have to develop my own systematic method of reading in order to criticize his own.)

I'd say "free will", but that dumbass doesn't believe in that.

I'm also currently reading pic related. Great material for those with faith who have questions about the intrinsics of pain and suffering, as well as Pagan ideals.

This reminds me of some documentary I watched, discussing soviet economics, where a factory that produced tractors would make several units, then literally dig a hole and bury the tractor because they got paid by how many tractors they produced, not how many tractors they sold. So, the excess tractors they made were taking up so much space that they just started burying them.

I like buddhism and all but it doesn't seem to make sense that you can go beyond existence and nothing. The only way I can imagine is if you don't try to categorize either of them and regard both of them as part of the same thing. But that is easier said than truly understood.

Yeah commies think the price structure of the market is only there to steal value from the worker and satisfy their greed, but it's really about allocating resources in an economy in which demand systematically exceed the resources available. Since everyone cannot get all that they want, for most people would like an unlimited amount of things, how are we to determined who gets what in an economy of millions of people? Central planning is a poor substitute.

Fuck commies.

all I can remember from Kant is that he says it's immoral to lie to a murderer who's asking you for the location of your daughter so he can kill her

so judging by that one thing I think he must be retarded

This Pulitzer Prize winner is a fantastic analysis of the rise of Islamic extremism in the modern age, the life and role of Osama Bin Laden, and what I believe to be the most important, the breakdown of our governmental agencies and their incompetence in the pre 9/11 era.

Buddhism is a path you have to walk on. You have to change your perception. Verbalization isn't the way to experience the insight of Buddhism. The words are merely a map, but you will not see the sights of the environment the map represents by looking at it. You must walk there.

Evola is quite clear about this: it's not for everybody to walk the path.

does anybody have that julius evola screenshot that goes through all his books and what order to read them? I'm pissed I didn't keep it when I saw it.

needs more Hindu literature, my almond eyed friend

This conservative anti rationalism is the biggest problem with the right.

hello, Neon

That book is largely responsible for speeding up the collapse of the western roman empire.
Put your faith in the city of man not the imaginary city of god.

...

I'm not even sure if you're against the quote or for it.

>the (((city of man))), aka the tower of babylon, aka communism

is this esoteric aussie shitposting hour?

Oakeshott was critical of rationalism, if you think the quote was pro rationality read it again or look up oakeshott's other work.
I think the anti rationalism idealism which underlies the likes of oakeshott, Evola and Nietzsche are all problematic.

>problematic
Oh god, it IS aussie shitposting hour

You uneducated leaf bongs need to understand the context Augustine was writing in. He wrote the city of god after Rome was sacked for the first time in 1000 years, he undermined the civic duty of roman citizens by telling them not to worry about glory in this life, to focus on the next.
He was a good Christ cuck.

Get some stuff by Kerry Bolton

There's a difference between rationality and rationalism as Oakeshott uses these terms.

Oakeshott definitely rejects the idea of some kind of axiomatic method to politic, or the a prior elucidation of universal principles leading to a perfect manual of political application good for all time.

For him as I understand him, the political is a flow within a tradition, an experience that must be lived in, and not merely the application of some doctrine drawn up by a cloistered intellectual.

The problem is you start down that path and you will invariably reject rationalism as an epistemological framework, context wider than politics.

>esoteric/10
You really can't have traditionalism without the esoteric.

In fact, I would argue that you can't even really understand pre-Renaissance history from the purely materialistic and atheistic perspective of most modern historians and sociologists. For most of human history, the nature of religious belief was intensely esoteric. It wasn't the sort of ideological position it is today, but rather was an absolute belief fundamental to peoples' understanding of the world. It was seen more like a law of physics than a matter of faith. Leaving it out of the way we view the decisions made by people in the past invariable gives an inaccurate view of the past that makes the people of these times seem irrational or savage.

You're right, the Rationalist fancies himself as someone who can come up with a solution to any problem and write it down for all time. The truth of the matter is that the same problem will not have the same solution 100 years in the future.

No, the rationalist fancies that when all apply reason from the same axioms they will come to the same conclusion. The rationalist seeks to break down beliefs until it is clear on which bedrock they stand so one can apply empirical methods to determine the truth or falsity or utility of those base values.
Solutions will remain the same unless you change the basic postulates, but the reasoning will remain valid in the other context.

I'd have to see that thesis worked out but it seems to me not to be the case simply due to the fact that for most of human history, states and politics did not happen in virtue of the good grace of rationalism as it is understood by Oakeshott.

Just think of the common law, which is not a monument to rationalistic design.

No, Ride the Tiger is the third in a trilogy of sorts. Go in this order:

Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga
Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist
Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul

Rationalism is an epistemological method of establishing the truth.
The truths of science subsume those of history and politics.

>No, the rationalist fancies that when all apply reason from the same axioms they will come to the same conclusion.

I'll throw a thesis at you:

>Berlin's master idea is that ultimate values are objective and knowable, but they are many, they often come into conflict with one another and are uncombinable in a single human being or a single society, and that in many of such conflicts there is no overarching standard whereby the competing claims of such ultimate values are rationally arbitrable. Conflicts among such values are among incommensurables, and the choices we make among them are radical and tragic choices. There is, then, no summum bonum or logos, no Aristotelian mean or Platonic form of the good, no perfect form of human life, which we may never achieve but towards which we may struggle, no measuring rod on which different forms of human life encompassing different and uncombinable goods can be ranked. This assertion of the variety and incommensurability of the goods of human life is not, it is worth nothing, the Augustinian thesis that human life is imperfect, and imperfectible: it is the thesis that the very idea of perfection is incoherent.

Evola would have you revolt against the truths of the sciences. Very misplaced.

I'm not OP but here's the link to the Sup Forums Mega library.

Currently reading Carnage & Culture, not bad at all.

Enjoy, faggots.

mega:#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg!o0Uk3KTJ

Yes, this is basically point I was arguing in much less coherent and well-reasoned terms.

Well science can show us what humans tend to benefit from. This is a good we can try to optimise towards.
People will have some different values, but they will share some things, such as the need for food and shelter, to education and artistic independence.