Julius Evola

What's his problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/basic-science-can-t-survive-without-government-funding/
oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2015_sti_scoreboard-2015-en
youtu.be/pKP4cfU28vM
youtu.be/YItUjrGdkh8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You people want to destroy this country and the white working class, I'd think it's obvious at this point. It's probably too late to do anything about it, but I'd still rather fight back.

He was born in the wrong generation.

The modern world

started reading his Revolt Against the Modern World.

A lot of good stuff. But.. meh, I dunno. It seems we need a traditionalist that is THAT much connected with mysticism and obscuantism...
I get it that it is fundamental to his system... The whole idea of "reaching upwards" always is great, puting the spiritual above the material, or the idea that men needs to me asceptics or warriors and women need to be lovers or mothers. The idea that race and spirituality are not completly separate. All of that is awesome. But he is just clear and practical enough to be the philosophical basis of a political movement of traditionalism in the XXI century - he has too many oriental influences, not enough appreciation for christianity, well... not to get into the whole pagan vs christianity stuff again, but you know, we do need to be united spiritually in order for tradition to be restored. Also, great defense of monarchy and aristocracy. He does appreciates christianity when it incorporates some pagan elements - like in Dante's, which is something christians should really look into! (i myself am a catholic, and i don't see roman/greek paganism as completly incoherent with christianity).

Well, to sum up. Many good ideas, but a bit too deep, orientalist and mystic. He is like Mises for the libertarian movement - every libertarian says it is awesome, but can't really read through Human Action because it is so absurdly philosophically dense you just give up because he goes on too many tangents before getting to any point.

Still, worth reading. Going to read a bit more myself when I can. BTW, anybody intrested in traditionalists, reactionary and nationalist intellectuals check the counter-currents lists. It is a decent starting point.

correction: It seems we DON'T need a traditionalist that is THAT much connected with mysticism and obscuantism...

Modernity

jesus another corrections:
he is just NOT clear enough...

(i'm also not)

misplaced ancient roman

>he is just NOT clear enough...
>(i'm also not)
It sounds more like you're blaming the author for your own intellectual shortcomings tbqh
Plato's Republic and the Socratic method are relevant here

he was a delusional occultist who admitted to having been suicidal. his works are to the alt-right what dianetics is to scientologists, the crazy ideas of a mentally imbalanced individual that appeal to other mentally imbalanced people looking for a philosophy to lean on rather than think for themselves.

In a way, yes. Look man, I am saying: if I was a guy like Jordan Peterson or if I had studied symbolism and eastern religions and gnosticism and all sorts of occult traditions.... I could understand better Evola. But for fuck sake, how the hell is the common european man, or even a leader of a traditionalist movement be able to understand all of these things? It is fucking impossible tbqh.

I'm blaming the author on my intellectual shortcomings in the sense that he is not populist enough to be the main thinker of the movement we need right now.

He still is very intresting and of course should be considered very seriously intellectually. Just not practical at all.

>What's his problem?
the modern world

Feelz>Realz

I've not read Evola, but he doesn't come as a person who tried to to the ''common man''. There are different levels on the intellectual hierarchy, which is completely fine. Both thinkers and doers are necessary for societies. The greatest thinkers seldom are able to pull off movements, but they are often the men who inspire the great popular leaders for actions. As an example of an idea hierarchy, Schopenhauer/Nietzsche --> Hitler --> German people.

Evola has his role, and that is of the great thinker, who inspires thought in the great leader.

are you trying to say that race is only skin deep?

Kalergi is his problem.

Where did he admit to being suicidal? I can imagine one can only ride the proverbial tiger for so long.

when he was young after he was in WWI, which sparkled his interest in dadaism

A war vet is suicidal? That would make a lot more sense, really.

yes, you're right about most of that i guess.

He certanly didn't tried to write for the "common men" at all

Evola was good, but I believe Miguel Serrano was even more potent and more esoterically accurate.

Initiation is a core of Evolaic and Guenonian doctrine, you're clearly not the target.

I don't think he saw much action, but WWI by itself was a rather spiritually dark time for those involved I think. The unprecedented mass of people involved, the pretty much absence of heroic possibilities with trench warfare, the seemingly pointlessness of it, etc...

unironically this

That makes sense.

>Miguel Serrano
I hope you're kidding.

Evola was unironically an autist who felt out of place in his society and looked at the past with rose tinted glasses. He walked the streets of some city (i forgot which one) while it was being bombed, because that gave him some purpose and excitement. If you have ever seen that image that gets posted sometimes, the one where in the left panel you have a guy killing a boar with a rock, and in the right panel, the same guy with a dead look on his face, standing in a shopping mall with his wife. Its the same thing, just a hundred years ago. I dont even necessarily disagree with him, but I think his ideas were heavily tainted by "feelz>realz" as the ancom faggot put it. Too much obsession with fantastical mysticism and occultism, too much LARPing. But where he was coming from was understandable, and should be to any user.

Jesus, they really do want us all to be small souled bugmen.

Heinlein used the bug/insect references for a reason in Starship Troopers.

It is so common for people who cannot understand a work to disparage it for being "obscurantist" and then misrepresenting it (like calling it "too orientalist" and then saying that he doest appreciate christianity enough in the same sentence... lol)

Just accept that you are not smart enough, its okay, he wrote entry level books for people like you too

>a guy like Jordan Peterson
>A Jungian understanding any spiritual Tradition

Really need to read more of him. Revolt was great (and somewhat revolting at times, to my modernist bugmanite mind) but it sort of leaves you with "a sense of uncertainty and what now?".

Will read more, it's just that you have to really concentrate on his stuff. Reading him to me was more like work, which I completed out of pure autistic determination to do what I set out to do.

It was worth it. The "world" he describes vis-a-vis (fuck you Evola) modernity (and the root causes of it, on some deeper levels) is the only relevant paradigm.

>I dont even necessarily disagree with him, but I think his ideas were heavily tainted by "feelz>realz" as the ancom faggot put it
But Evola tells us:
'The ''other world" attacked by European nihilism, presented by the latter as sheer illusion or condemned as an evasion, is not another reality; it is another dimension of reality in which the real, without being negated, acquires an absolute significance in the inconceivable nakedness of pure Being.'
He isn't talking a superiority of feeling over truth, but a kind of truth which is superior to tall. I think the point is, there are different levels of reality which we perceive.

I like Evola, but I definitely need to re-read Revolt. Felt like I've missed a lot in the first couple of attempts.

*to all others

...

...

Yeah and there is no evidence for such a reality whatsoever, therefore it is LARPing.

he literally BELIEVES STRONGLY that feels are more important than reals, like every fash retard

Quiet, nigger. His work shows the paths to those who recognize the being within themselves.

on that line...

>"I identified the foundation of the world of Tradition with the doctrine of two natures, a doctrine based on the notion of the existence of two opposing orders: a physical order and a metaphysical. The latter order represents the superior realm of 'being' opposed to the lower realm of becoming and of history: an immortal nature opposed to the perishable. The man of Tradition does not perceive this doctrine as merely a 'theory', but rather as a directly verifiable existential truth. Each traditional civilization is thus characterized by an attempt to lead man from the lower order of reality to the higher, along various stages of approximation, participation and effective realization. "

>"Originally, at the centre of each traditional civilization, stood 'immanent transcendence': the concrete presence of a non-human transcendent force embodied in higher beings possessing the highest authority. Perhaps the chief expressions of this idea are ancient forms of divine kingship. The most common means of passing from the lower nature to the higher has always been initiation. Contemplation and heroic action represent two great paths based on an approximation to the higher order; loyalty and ritual, two means of sharing in such an order. The higher order of reality has always found a support in traditional law, with its objective and supra-personal character, and has symbolically been expressed by the traditional state or empire: a worldly and historical reflection of that which transcends the world. Such, then, are the foundations of traditional hierarchies and civilizations. "

Evola wasn't a fascist you commie faggot. He even criticized fascism "from the right", he wrote a book on that. He also isn't wrong, just for the wrong reasons. There is more to humanity than base accumulation of resources and materialism, however the answer does not lie in spiritual fairy tales and made up realms. Commies are materialistic animals, you would have all of humanity turn into the Nietzschean idea of the "last man", aka human beings who exist as animals. Content with eating, fucking, shitting, and sleeping. You don't need metaphysical mumbo jumbo to want more than that. Commies dont want more than that. A commie world will not lead to humanity conquering the stars and exploring other worlds, or basking in technology so advanced it is almost magical. We see this even today. Commies only care about how much some poor nigger has to eat, and about which orifice they can stick a dildo into, or some other degenerate animalistic nonsense. Materialism needs a transcendental aspect to it, that is, it is ok to see the world as a purely physical thing, bound by natural laws, and not believe in any metaphysical or unproven nonsense. It is not ok for humanity to exist as a base animal.

...

>We need to transcend material physical reality while resolutely denying anything beyond it

kek

as an ex-evolaesque fashy during high school and now an avowed communist in my early 20's, the Soviet Union was one of the largest drivers of progress and scientific advancement during the 20th century. They started and won the space race, not to mention made dizzying gains economically, socially, and technologically.
The materialist aspect of communist thought is generally recognizing how material conditions are the driving force for ideologies and why things currently are the way they are.
Transcending outdated traditions-- i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental destruction-- and having an equitable society for all while reaching for the stars is the goal of many on the left.

I never said we need to transcend material reality. Why do so many people have such shit reading comprehension? I said we need to transcend base animalistic values, such as eating, shitting, and fucking. The world is material whether you like it or not. But it wasn't animalistic materialism (as a guiding philosophy) that made us go to the fucking moon. Do you understand? By materialism I dont mean the nature of the world, by materialism i mean the nature of human existence. What we consider important, etc.

>the Soviet Union was one of the largest drivers of progress and scientific advancement during the 20th century
No, it was not you idiot. In fact the soviet union opposed science in many respects, for example in the area of genetics. I dont recall the exact name of what it's called, but they basically rejected the scientific and genetic theories behind selective breeding of plants because it contradicted their communistic dogma. Biologists who did not conform to the pseudo-scientific soviet take on selective breeding were thrown into gulags and killed. Look it up if you dont believe me. The soviet union did industrialize heavily, yes. And they pursued some areas of science, such as the space race for example. There was no ideological commitment to science or discovery, it was only about competing with the capitalist west and trying to build a stronger military. Furthermore, the soviet union was just a clusterfuck ideologically, it esentially turned into an authoritarian state with some socialist underpinnings, but really it was just a populist cult for Stalin, and it was about doing whatever he wanted, not about pursuing anything higher.

>The materialist aspect of communist thought is generally recognizing how material conditions are the driving force for ideologies and why things currently are the way they are
Which is retarded, because humans have always cared about more than just what they have to eat and where they can sleep. Throughout all of history, humans have done things that would be considered irrational by any materialistic standard, in the name of some transcendental purpose. (NOT METAPHYSICS NECESSARILY).

>Transcending outdated traditions-- i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental destruction-- and having an equitable society for all while reaching for the stars is the goal of many on the left.
Racism is not a fucking tradition. It is just basic tribalism. Tribalism isn't going anywhere, and it doesn't need to. (1/2)

>Materialism needs a transcendental aspect to it
^What you said

A thing cannot transcend itself by definition, very simple. You deny the existence of anything beyond materiality.


>But it wasn't animalistic materialism (as a guiding philosophy) that made us go to the fucking moon. Do you understand? By materialism I dont mean the nature of the world, by materialism i mean the nature of human existence. What we consider important, etc.
??????

You cannot write coherently and then accuse others of bad comprehension.

My problem with Evola is that I cannot embrace my people's traditions, they're all totally subverted, have been for hundreds of years. I don't want to be a revolutionary protestant, I want to be a reactionary pagan or maybe a Sedevacantist.

(2/2)
You actually think that once humanity becomes an interstellar species, tribalism will be REDUCED? Seriously? No, individualism is the future. I have no kinship with africans, I sure as FUCK am not going to feel any kind of kinship towards humans living on another planet in another star system, especially since nobody cancelled evolution and with time they would even develop into subspecies. Sexism isn't even a thing outside of wife beaters. Gender roles have biological and rational roots, and always have. Homophobia is irrelevant. Be a fag all you want, nobody has to like you for it. Environmental destruction is sometimes bad, and sometimes ok. Nature can be very beautiful, and preserving it is a good idea. But we can't autistically be afraid of harming it in any way. It is ok to strip mine here and there for resources, for example. And outside of our planet it is even less relevant. Its about balance. Harmony with nature is a meme, no animal exists in harmony with nature. Nature is an utterly neutral obstacle.

elitist and a faggot.

>as an ex-evolaesque fashy during high school and now an avowed communist in my early 20's, the Soviet Union was one of the largest drivers of progress and scientific advancement during the 20th century. They started and won the space race, not to mention made dizzying gains economically, socially, and technologically.
At what cost? High cost
Compared to what? They might have done even better under capitalism.

>Transcending outdated traditions-- i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental destruction-- and having an equitable society for all while reaching for the stars is the goal of many on the left.
Made up phobias based on the fake idea of human equality

Samefag

I am admittedly having trouble explaining what I mean by this. I have no philosophical definition to reference to get across what I mean. The word materialism is used in two different ways by people. One definition of it is that materialism is when people focus on physical things and physical needs, and care about little else that is abstract or metaphysical. This is animalistic. It is being content with having food, shelter, and reproductive privileges. There is another definition of materialism, which has to do with the nature of the world. This definition says that the world is entirely physical and we can know it by observing it, there is no metaphysical aspect to it, no afterlife or god or higher dimension, etc. What we see is all there is, whatever exists within the natural, physical world. This is what I believe the world is like, however I do not accept the former definition as being the natural conclusion of the latter, in terms of how we must lead our lives. Just because there is no metaphysical reality, doesn't mean that our values need to be entirely animalistic, or materialistic. Does that make more sense?

>My problem with Evola is that I cannot embrace my people's subverted traditions
>I want to be a reactionary pagan
How is that a problem? That is exactly what Evola did

Capitalism is antithetical to scientific advances, the majority of scientific advancements rely on governmental funding. Even Space-X and other companies rely on heavy subsidies and base knowledge established in universities.

These "outdated traditions" are not just parts of human nature(it exists retard); as animal behaviors developed through evolution they are an expression of underlying reality itself, regardless if you view ultimate reality as physical of metaphysical. If you seek to "transcend" this reality you are not an animal, you are a deluded animal, no different from some gnostic faggot hating the embodied life given to him by the oh so evil creator of the world. If you want to achieve greatness you need to recognize these behaviors as part of you and your fellow man, master them and use them for your own benefit.

I think you are seeing a contrast where there is none really.
In you ask for "evidence" for such reality, yet you speak of "values" higher than animalistic instincts.
Where are those "values" or how are they "weighted" if not in the non-material side of the world? Notice I'm using the term "side" because there really is no contrast here.

Without this non-material world, what are those "values" if not sterile abstract fabrications of a fancy hairless ape's sticky brain, and why would this ape bother with them anyway?
Without this non-material world, how do you really draw the line?

It's that Brazilian cult member of Peterson. He literally talks about Peterson on every thread.

Yes I speak of values higher than those present in lesser animals. In no way are these values connected to anything metaphysical, they are caused by our (entirely physical) higher intellect. Humans are more intelligent than animals and have the capacity to reason and come up with all kinds of ideas that are not necessary for base animalistic survival and reward.

>Without this non-material world, what are those "values" if not sterile abstract fabrications of a fancy hairless ape's sticky brain, and why would this ape bother with them anyway?
You are right that these values are merely the fabrications of our brains, why does that invalidate them? Evolution has given us the gift of greater intelligence, why would we not use it? Why are these values invalid simply because they are the result of a physical brain rather than a metaphysical consciousness?

I think you misunderstand. Communists study history and the evolution / drivers of ideas such as gender/sexuality and the modern concept of whiteness. Only thereafter are you able to challenge them
Not sure what you mean by "mastering", especially when many of the traditions you hold as universal are anything but and are many times ahistorical.

Most science comes from private companies. I don't know what you're talking about.
And what about capitalism means there can't be government investment?
Delete yourself.

[citations necessary]
scientificamerican.com/article/basic-science-can-t-survive-without-government-funding/

Definitely makes more sense, but how can a completely material entity (human) transcend materialism is a complexity material universe?

Any abstractions or psuedo-metaphysical goals/ideas/purposes would still be animalistic and material in nature, as they are created by and ultimately confined to the brain and actions of a material being.

If the "trancendental" aim was to create a Nat Soc ethnostate of hyper-technology and attractive people spread across the galaxy... what would this be except a higher level of animalistic impulse?

>Ethnonationalism would merely be a higher level of a Chimp tribe fights other chimp tribe

>Hyper-Technology would merely be the product of a particularly intelligent animal seeking more comfort, a source of amusement, and to propagate its genes

>Spreading across the galaxy would just be a higher level of one ant colony splitting into two to spread itself

Its just an animal convincing itself that it is seeking something higher when it is not

Why dont you challenge the concept of blackness or asianness? Both of which are just as ahistorical and nonsensical and whiteness.

>According to OECD, more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government.[1]
oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2015_sti_scoreboard-2015-en

Probably being dead is his biggest problem.

That doesn't discuss governmental funding and grants nor the continued reliance on base scientific technologies.

>Mfw when Capitalists and Communists are arguing over which economic system produces more technological advances in an Evola thread

>That doesn't discuss governmental funding and grants
It does. Government accounts for 10% of funding.

>nor the continued reliance on base scientific technologies.
Do you realise government and capitalism can co-exist? The current system has produced plenty of science and will continue to do so.

like pottery

Oh I see, you mean government gives them grants

You don't understand him because you're not an aristocrat of the soul. He doesn't want to appeal to the common man...

>Any abstractions or psuedo-metaphysical goals/ideas/purposes would still be animalistic and material in nature, as they are created by and ultimately confined to the brain and actions of a material being.
Indeed, this is what I believe, therefore by the philosophical definition of the term, I am a materialist.

>If the "trancendental" aim was to create a Nat Soc ethnostate of hyper-technology and attractive people spread across the galaxy... what would this be except a higher level of animalistic impulse?
It would be an animalistic impulse only in the sense that we are of course, animals. Again we come to the issue of definitions. By animalistic I dont mean only biological in origin, or having an origin in the animal kingdom, I mean values that we as human beings and animals have in common. Any value that we do not share with the lesser animals is not animalistic by this definition, although still being animalistic in a purely biological sense or in terms of classifying as as members of the animal kingdom. No lesser beast is capable of even dreaming of a hyper technological future, animals can only think about fucking, eating, sleeping, fighting, running, resting, etc. If humans were to do only that, it would be what Nietzsche called the "last man".

>Its just an animal convincing itself that it is seeking something higher when it is not
But it is seeking something higher, simply because no other animal does the same. It is rooted in something we have that other animals do not, a more evolved intelligence. A neo-cortex, the human "mind". Of course it is tied to an extent to baser animal urges, but it is still not the same thing. Why is a more advanced intellect being the source of "higher ideals" not enough to justify pursuing them? Why must they be the result of something metaphysical for you to not push them aside as being irrelevant?

Either way in the USA:
The US spent $456.1 billion for research and development (R&D) in 2013, the most recent year for which such figures are available, according to the National Science Foundation. The private sector accounted for $322.5 billion, or 71%, of total national expenditures, with universities and colleges spending $64.7 billion, or 14%, in second place.[4]

The modern world

>Communists study history and the evolution / drivers of ideas such as gender/sexuality and the modern concept of whiteness. Only thereafter are you able to challenge them
This is exactly the problem with your reasoning, you view fundamental aspects of human nature as nothing more than ideas and social constructions. It does not matter how much you try to understand them, in your mind they are nothing more than ideological obstacles. As to the "traditions" not being universal, things like gender roles, tribalism and heteronormativity are universal genetic behaviors for humans, they are simply suppressed by ideology, always to the dysfunction of the society in question.

Derrida was a fag, Evola was a fag, and so are you. Obscurantism is a legitimate charge when your main sources for your arguments are based on mysticism and Hermeticism.

>Why is a more advanced intellect being the source of "higher ideals" not enough to justify pursuing them?
It's not enough for me personally, and it doesnt seem to be working out with people in general

>Why must they be the result of something metaphysical for you to not push them aside as being irrelevant?
Because when you see the world beyond, that which is confined to the material one is insignificant.

This is why every society which knew and lived metaphysics cared little about material progress. When man could no longer conquer heaven he settled for conquering the earth, sad!

fugg off positivist brainlet

...

He took the red pill, the black pill, the occult pill and the yoga pill and somehow managed to survive

So the answer is Spengler is intelligent and possessed of keen powers of observation, Evola is a nigger LARPer who reads magic books.

>Humans are logic machines and not irrational meatbags.
The fact your so bothered by this simple fact proves his point.

So you imagine no power greater than that of man? Yet Spengler proceeds to model his cycle after nature and what maybe would describe as God's model of life.

whoa i member that original post a coupla weeks back. whyd you screenshot?

Small souled bugmen one and all.

Okay well you have fun reaching God through made up chants and making dumb patterns out of rocks.

Spengler literally plagiarized the fing bible for his "nature model" one could even argue Darwin did just as much and claimed it his own as well. IN addition Giambatista Vico I would argue was Evola real source of model rather than Spengler, both have value but Vico came way ahead of Spengler, in fact without Vico Spengler had nothing much else in his work, if not for Goethe modeling he might have seemed of little value. youtu.be/pKP4cfU28vM

ESOTERIC = DEGENERATE


I BELIEVE IN THE REAL WORLD!!!!!

No shit, Sherlock. I wouldn't have been able to check the ID without your help.

>esoterically accurate

That also seems wrong, for in memes and magick and sigils and various other beliefs one can control reality and steer it. Brains are not hardwired without re-programmable software. Nature made all of it, metaphors can be wrought into reality as well, the mind imagining the occult or the esoteric was brought forth from harsh unforgiving nature. Then when one grounds down to the most absolute smallest point in nature one cannot measure it without altering the object measured.....nothing that exists does so in isolation nor does it exist in the sense we can get to a fundamental level of what maybe really real....you will always run into a problem of measurement which appears relative to where you maybe located in space time, gravity or measurements change dependent upon where you maybe located, this was very unsettling to science during the last century as well as unsettling to religion, both of which tend to require total understanding of fundamental reality....all of which results an illusion. Taking a traditionalist position means something entirely transcendent in light of modern science and modern religion, that modernism maybe simply a relative ideology and no more true. Knowing limitations becomes a liberating understanding, Evola was born too early. He was only around during the start of this conseptualization and society was still operating on the basis of a understandable "reality", so fascism naturally failed to take root in the manner he knew in his gut was the truest and most in accordance with nature....a anti modern revolt against model theism.

>as an ex-evolaesque fashy during high school
The "esque" part of "evolaesque" is your problem. Try actually reading his work.

The copy-paste critique from leftists (/leftypol/ more precisely - not necessarily accusing you of this) was funny to me (in good sense, as observant leftists tend to be) but ultimately you can tell that these opinions sprouted from one guy that half-read one of his major works without ever grasping what Evola was pointing to.

Another indicator of this is the fact that Evola is, by these Leftists, considered to be merely an autistic doofus justifying his entitlements while some National Socialists, or Capitalists are The Devil. If these people understood his work, Evola would be The Devil, while the other two merely unconvinced communists (perhaps with the exception of elements like Rosenberg etc.).

>If these people understood his work, Evola would be The Devil, while the other two merely unconvinced communists
shhhh

What bothers people most of all with Evola maybe that he alludes to the possibility of a truth beyond mere modern science and religion. Some think he was misinformed but they misunderstand his message and others rightly consider him the devil once they fully grasp his intent. To argue from Evola's vantage point is to facilitate an argument one can easily die for knowing full well one has lived in accordance entirely with nature and the beyond in the purest sense, not lost in some modernist abstractions failing to find meaning and value....feeling abject horror and triggering at everything and anything going on around one, confused and in fear. The best in art and music give a mere glimpse of what Evola understands. To me it maybe that profound.

"Feelz" do effect reality, though.

Culture is a set of stimuli that you are exposed to again and again throughout your childhood, and it has an effect on how you see the world, and how you judge others.

Race (call it phenotype groups if you want to be autistic) is literally the physical structure of your body and brain, and it effects your reactions to stimuli, and thus other humans.

Ultra-materialists, be they capitalists or commies, only try to explain human relations through how much wealth a person or group has, and how products and labor should be exchanged. They don't take into account cultural, genetic, or environmental influences. You're so autistic that you literally try to say "culture and race are spooks!" or try to destroy them, because you only know how to relate things to the equations of (((Marx))) or (((Friedman)), who didn't include race or culture as variables.

When people think of a conservative or traditionalist they often have in mind someone simply unaware of the modern and or unaware as though living in a cave or a basement...Clinton alluded to this in her deplorable speech, they couldn't be further from the truth though. What a traditionalist means is a knowledge of the modern world to such an extent and through understanding that one can easily find a grounds and or basis for rejection of it.....not just a post modern critique but a total rejection of the philosophy, not just a new post modern modernism that maybe just as deluded and scattered and incongruous. Take music genre and cultural activity and description in terms of art, there's a billion relative terms...most if not all getting mashed up together to the point of obliterating any and all reference, reference becomes entirely useless to the radical traditionalist, a mere abstraction and illusion devoid of any truth. Intersectionality is basically a description of insanity and or a justification of modernism which has lost any sense of understanding and or meaning. Deterritorialization run amuck. You can quote that as a new phrase. Fuck Derrida. youtu.be/YItUjrGdkh8

I think people forget(or don't realize) that, interestingly enough, both Guenon and Evola, arguably the two most prominent Traditionalists, both lived in the 20th century and had mathematics/scientific backgrounds before jumping into perennialism/philosophy.