JULIUS EVOLA PREDICTED Sup Forums

“There is a superior unity of all those who despite all, fight in different parts of the world the same battle, lead the same revolt, and are the bearers of the same intangible Tradition. These forces appear to be scattered and isolated in the world, and yet are inexorably connected by a common essence that is meant to preserve the absolute ideal of the Imperium and to work for its return.”

― Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist

Also general political/philosophical literature thread

Which book should I read first, never read evola

>There is a superior unity of all those who despite all, fight in different parts of the world the same battle, lead the same revolt, and are the bearers of the same intangible Tradition

ah, so Sup Forums and ISIS are on the same page?
Evola an hack

Evola would not like Sup Forums, as the latter does not understand the former. It is way too plebeian and most users have a overly materialist approach to race. They support a bastardized notion of 'tradition' over Tradition (with a capital 'T')... etc.

>self proclaimed expert on Evola
Fuck off fag. Nobody goes from modern materialist brainwashing to being cleansed of it without time.

Have a bump OP

Evola is criminally underappreciated and unknown

His autobiography The Path of Cinnabar is probably the best introduction if you are totally new.

I started off with Ride the Tiger but I heard Men Among the Ruins is an amazing piece too

Goddamn...

Evola was the first ever Sup Forumstard NEET

"Revolt Against the Modern World" is the most important of his books to read.

anyone read this?

>Evola

Guenon for brainlets

and where my /goonheads/ at?

Start with the path of cinnibar then read ride the tiger.

Giving his works a glance I take it he delves a lot into pseudo science. Correct me if im wrong

Anyone read Ernst Jünger or Carl Schmitt?

Fair enough.

Yeah, that stuff is meh.
He's still far more relatable than most philosophers.

Belief in 'Science' as a measure of upmost importance as opposed to traditional wisdom is itself one of the main factors underpinning the cultural, physical and spiritual degeneration that the western world finds itself in today.

yah, but soon we have to organize that tradition irl

ww3 soon

internet won't stay up forever

> Evola hates material prosperity
> Evola hates modernity
> Evola hates empiricism
> Evola hates rationality
> Evola hates individual choices
> Evola loves dialectical idealism
> Evola believes you experience the fullness of life through endless conflict
> Evola said "The blood of heroes is closer to the lord than the ink of scholars and prayers of the pious"

> Pagan Imperialism, a massive attack on the Catholic Church, Christianity was feminized, egalitarian, humanitarian, weak, and excessively pro-peace, and so the Church had to be smashed if civilization were to be saved.

> Evola wrote extensively on the race issue, and, given the context of the time, his views were slightly more liberal than, for example, the doctrinaire Nazis. He believed that the human person was made of biology, mind, and spirit, so that a person could be a Jew biologically but an Ayran in mind and therefore not entirely intolerable. That Evola was considered a heretic by the hard-core Nazis tells you all you need to know about these times

> Revolt Against the Modern World positing a Golden Age of racial purity and perfect political organization that was disrupted by the advent of liberalism, but predicting that the decline will be ended by a full revolt in favor of a strongman-led state that will take us to a new era of perfect order.

> It is no wonder the superior races are dying out before the ineluctable logic of individualism, which especially in the so-called contemporary “higher classes,” has caused people to lose all desire to procreate. Not to mention all the other degenerative factors connected to a mechanized and urbanized social life and especially to a civilization that no longer respects the health and creative limitations constituted by the castes and by the traditions of blood lineage.
> "The inferior never lives a fuller life than when he feels his existence is subsumed in a greater order endowed with a center" - Evola
What the fuck....

>implying that isn't mostly correct and a good thing

>Being this retarded

I just don't agree with it, he's steeping himself in 19th century mysticism and feelings and disgarding rationality, logic and evidence.

Personally and subjectively I might agree about the higher struggles in life but most spirutual movements of philosophies center around evolving the soul towards love, this guy and his predecessors seem to think conflict should be the goal to evolve the soul.

It's hard to agree with the guy, he rants he rants he rants but he doesn't analyze and he doesn't prove. If you in your guts agree with him, whatever fine. Memes aside I don't want to live in a world that he envisions where I am subjugated like an aztec pyramid sacrifice for the whims of "great men" who are merely popular enough to control the mob.

That's not how I want to find meaning from life and I certainly don't want anymore fucking masters. I lean more towards Tolkien here:
> the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.

Do you agree with him that
> We need to destroy Christianity
Seems to go again Sup Forumss harping on about Western Values
> human person was made of biology, mind, and spirit, so that a person could be a Jew biologically but an Ayran in mind
Seems to go against the genetic empiricism of race realism does it not?

He seems like a bag of contradictions with what ethno-nationalists have been arguing for but because he was a Fascist its okay but don't punch us lefties, we're just nationalists not fascists! Fuck me dead.

He described Sup Forums before 2015

evola was into gay sex magic i don't know why he's so fucking popular around these parts

Don't be so harsh on the user you replied to
He is completely right especially about most of Sup Forums relying on a bastardized notion of tradition rather than the Tradition Evola spoke
I'm no expert on Evola but I know that much on him at least

Because 2 or 3 guys actually read him and the rest just hear about a new edgy intellectual meme around the place and get a hard on. Blame the /lit/ infographics floating around getting people excited to meme people they won't bother reading.

wouldn't surprise me
someone posts a vague quote about tradition and all of a sudden everyone's an VLTRA-FASCIST EVOLA READER

>t. superfascist

How does that refute my claim that it takes people time to come around? People are not going to break their conditioning immediately. Modernity is seductive and has a much deeper grip on people than they realize.

Also, I had meant to tell him I respect him for taking my point when I was abrasive, that takes stones. The post didn't go through though.

I mean it's clear that most people on this board value tradition and religion as pillars of identity which in turn build thriving societies, if Evola isn't as based as you guys claim what alternatives do you recommend?

>value tradition and religion as pillars of identity which in turn build thriving societies
>what alternatives do you recommend?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>pol is traditionalist
Dude, most people here and on the alt-right, however that is defined, are secular, materialistic, racist liberals. They want to return to the Europe and America 50-100 years ago and don't know shit about metaphysics.

in terms of thinkers/philosophers not in terms of ideology

For the Imperium For the Emperor

I guess I've been hanging out on infinity chan for too long. Made this thread partially to see the absolute state of this board

>in terms of thinkers/philosophers
Jesus Christ, Son of God, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world
God the Father, the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth
The Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life

Your point was correct. We're all brothers in the same battle.

I'm not saying he doesn't suit the fascists in the room but the problem is understanding what the guys actually on about and whether you're more of a traditionalist or fascist. There's plenty of Fascist intellectualls being slowly pushed at the moment but they didn't come into their believes that same way a lot of you guys did.

I dunno, it's new around here just try to be realistic. Libertarians know their Classical Liberal forbearers aren't Ancaps, we appreciate them for what they are. I wouldn't talk about race statistics and then meme a guy who talks about "a Jew having an Aryan mind", I mean Liberals call him the devil he lines up a little bit with Libertarians saying "well what if you get a black guy like Thomas Sowell" Evola would be like "yeah for sure!"

Also you'd probably froth at Madison Grant and his "The Passing of the Great Race"

I wasn't trying to refute that part of your argument
It might or might not be true some people remain cuckservatives/liberals no matter how much evidence or arguments you place before them and for others yes it is gradual
Infinity is shit because of the retarded mods like Imkampfy

You have to take into consideration that many historical great works were adopted way after the writers death and were interpreted by that times standard. Some just off the top of my head: Bacon, Descartes, Copernicus hell even Marx, all of these people made an influence way after their deaths

this.

Correct.

Which is fair enough, ideas are funny like that they'll become popular and pop up in the most random times but what I mean is people trying to self-insert too much or straight up ignore blatant contradictions.

Like taking Marx being anti-materialist and atheist and using him for some weird Christian Socialism (even though those people exist) without realizing it themselves.

> The shortlived Fascist episode ended in blood, misery and ignominy. But the forces which generated Fascism are not dead. It may happen that Fascism will be resurrected under a new label and with new slogans and symbols. But if this happens, the consequences will be detrimental. For Fascism is not as the Fascists trumpeted a “new way to life;” it is a rather old way towards destruction and death. - Mises

Fuck I love this man, I can picture this tiny little old jew just fucking blasting Socialists and Fascists all day long even when they threaten to kick his teeth in.

How do you propose any notion of libertarianism working in a non homogeneous non unified state?

Yeah, Evola has some good criticisms of Fascism too.

...

Your Tolkien quote is faggy and nonsensical. Might is right. Period.

>he's steeping himself in 19th century mysticism and feelings and disgarding rationality, logic and evidence.
He's going way further back than 19th century. Anyway mere rationality, the scientific method etc can't approach metaphysics or explain it.
The claims made by traditionalists are supra-rational in nature.
>most spirutual movements of philosophies center around evolving the soul towards love
No, this is a modern corruption of religious structures. Spiritual movements aspire towards the Truth, objectivity etc. These are not always expressed in love but are always good. (righteous violence contrasted to proper expressions of love).
>It's hard to agree with the guy, he rants he rants he rants but he doesn't analyze and he doesn't prove.
He's trying to tap into something more powerful than mere cognition. Something more primal and necessary than rational technicalities.
>Memes aside I don't want to live in a world that he envisions where I am subjugated like an aztec pyramid sacrifice for the whims of "great men" who are merely popular enough to control the mob.
This sounds like you have a very limited conception of the matters to which reactionaries and traditionalists are trying to remedy. you exhibit many ills of the modern world in assuming that Evola thinks society consists of merely power-relations between interest-groups.
The primary problem of the modern world is materialism (monism), which is the negation of metaphysics. In such a world there can be no truly objective, natural basis for any knowledge or morality. This is why such societies default to nihilism and hedonism. The answer to this is to basically return to a spiritual mode of life, where the philosophical basic assumptions, upon which the whole worldview of the society rests upon, cannot be questioned due to their supra-rational nature.

The idea, fundamentally, is to return to a mode of civilization which was the norm from the dawn of civilization up until the enlightenment.

>conflict should be the goal to evolve the soul
That should be evident to anyone really.

Eh.. define unified. I don't find dividing people by a dozen categories as unifying as universal individual rights.

I dont really by into the whites = liberty thing either, whites change they're all socialists these, without wanting to derail an interesting thread (dialectical idealism is really fascinating) I'd rather a society of Libertarians seceding than trying to convince white collectivists in an authoritarian state to become individualists.

How can you find the truth without empiricism and rationality? I have immaterial beliefs but i can hardly claim them as a justification for material violence.

Literally who?

This

Is that how you approach your relationships with women? That the coming together of the feminine and masculine soul can be done in anyway other than through love, why should it be any different in cooperating in society, why must society evolve the spirit through bloodshed? I see the benefits of struggle but i dont see the necessity.

>Might is right
debatable, it certainly is justification

Not Evola.
> Next time without Italy

> rationalism can't approach metaphysics
> what is the Principle of Non-contradiction
> what is the Principle of Sufficient Reason
> Implying you have ever read Aristotle's Metaphysics
Literally the first principles of metaphysics are formulated around reality being intelligible you absolute troglodyte.

Might is effective doesnt make it right, we have evolved at least a bit capitalism proves it by showing mutual benefit, ostracism and incentive to also make right and that trade (win-win) is superior to plunder (win-lose).

Struggle is necessary to prune humanity so that we do not degenerate.

Conflict and struggle are merely recognized as the primary constituent part of our reality, and a certain ethos must be developed in order to face and live up to it.

Even in the Christian notion of marriage, it is one of duty and not necessarily one of love. "What God brought together Man cannot separate". That's duty in the face of any conflict because you strive for a higher ideal. Love is secondary.

This is now perverted and we value sentimental romantic love as the basis of our relationships. This is ephemeral and chaotic. Inferior lower passions are elevated above a constant principle.

Evola would've considered y'all degenerates and would probably tripfag here, and on /x/ and /his/

If you'd read Evola you'd know that yes, he advocates for conflict in romantic relationships, in which the man ultimately forces the woman into total submission. But you clearly haven't even read his Wikipedia page, where this is referenced, so why are you arguing about a writer you know nothing about?

>Seems to go again Sup Forumss harping on about Western Values
This is a semi-common strand of thought. Many people trace the genesis of modernity to christian teachings about equality for example.
I don't think this is correct. Most of the pathologies of Christianity can be traced to the inability to correctly marry the old and new testaments. The new testament can easily be interpreted (hello protestant reformation) as a very liberal document if read without the necessary context provided by the old testament.
If one reads the new testament as based in the law of the old however, it explains better the frame of mind in which the ancient people have operated. The old testament is pretty hardcore even when compared to it's contemporary pagan teachings as it is highly illiberal and basically advocates ethno-nationalism.
>Seems to go against the genetic empiricism of race realism does it not?
Only if one inhabits a materialistic worldview.

It's not debatable king contrarian, it's a law of nature.

FOR THE EMPEROR!

Are you meant to be quoting me here? Reality is intelligable but that doesn't mean the metaphysical is can be determined when we have only our sense perception?

>How can you find the truth without empiricism and rationality? I have immaterial beliefs but i can hardly claim them as a justification for material violence.
If you don't base the validity of rationality (or empiricism) in something more objective, you can't trust it to be nothing more than sophistry.
Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves one can't prove the validity of a system using only the system itself.
This locks the materialist worldview into an infinite self-referential loop.

>Most of the pathologies of Christianity can be traced to the inability to correctly marry the old and new testaments.

I believe hey are also generated by trying to graft Christianity over old pagan beliefs. For instance Chivalry was not always compatible with Christianity. For instance, the virtue of Valor.

Does the subsitence farmer achieve a higher spiritual self through the struggle of survival or can the prosperous find more time to devote to the spiritual once their material needs are met? We didn't get beethoven from conflict we got him through the latter.

> face this reality
> live up to it
I didnt realize facing the reality of struggle and conflict meant we had to pursue and glorify it?

> we value sentimental romantic love
I can't stand the modern obsession with "falling in love" because it mistakes a temporary chemical high for love which it isn't, but how is duty necessary here? Or do you mean duty coming in many forms or only one? (Ie. Male subjugation of women rather than the aspects being complementary)

Ease up on the ego, I was asking you how you view relatioships and whether that fits in with Evola which I clearly disagree with and have been posting as much the whole thread.

Evola is the absolute opposite of entry level political theory. I have all of his works on my bookshelf, all of which I have had to read multiple times in order to have a firm grasp on his ideas. I don't think you can read ride the tiger without first reading his earlier work. He does not go back and explain a lot of the concepts from his early work, so to actually understand what he's on about half the time you need to have read the other stuff.

I can't remember off hand which book it was, its either ride the tiger or amongst the ruins, but it was translated by two people, and the ones guys translations are a lot better and easier to read and understand than the others, which also contributed to a tough read for me.

I agree with Evola on a lot, not everything but certainly most of his opinions within his last works. Bit it was a struggle to get through and actually understand. There are many people who complain he doesn't prove or justify his positions, and that's true, either because he does in earlier work, or he references other work or ideas and expect the reader to go off and research that themselves. It's not academically strong, but if you take the time to research everything it makes a lot of sense.

Because of this it's difficult to explain his ideas to others. He presents the reader with a map of philosophical exploration, and I think you need to follow it from start to finish to truly understand it. In many ways it's the traditional form of education, not through someone teaching you what to think, but rather how to think, which is very different.

>mere rationality
C'mon man you know what I meant. Rationalism alone can't fully map out the transcendent.

How can you be more objective than sense perception? It sounds like you are saying to hold the subjective spiritual beliefs above sense reality which is fine but how can we call it truth or objective with so many contrary and conflicting spiritual truths around? Personally my religious truths are personal and I dont think they can be anything other than personal and internal.

Learn to read IDs newfag, I'm not the other guy. You haven't answered why you're arguing about a writer you've never read. Here's a thought, if you want to understand, why not try reading him? I'm sure coming off harsh, but 1 this is Sup Forums and 2 I have little patience for people who try to debate topics they're completely ignorant in.

Congratulations, you’ve found someone with an even LESS realistic view of the future than Benito Mussolini.

>I didnt realize facing the reality of struggle and conflict meant we had to pursue and glorify it?

You cannot avoid conflict, and its actually more destructive to attempt to eliminate conflict: That's the origin of utopianism and totalitarianism. Its not so much glorifying conflict than building a warrior ethos.

>Or do you mean duty coming in many forms or only one? (Ie. Male subjugation of women rather than the aspects being complementary)

I think Evola argued women should be physically subjugated by man because it aligns with the constant masculine principle dominating and ordering the chaotic feminine. (This is also why he thinks the State must 'order' the nation, or anything under the masculine aegis dominating the feminine). I don't know how far I would personally take him in romantic or marriage advice.

>conflict should be the goal to evolve the soul
It's the law of the universe. How does a muscle build strength? Resistance. How does an intelligence expand and meets its potential? Struggle. What forces life to evolve or die? Competition.

There is no improvement without pain. No greatness without loss.

Well said.

Why do you think I haven't read any Evola?
I don't have to agree with the cunt to have understood something he wrote.

> building a warrior ethos
For what purpose exactly? To participate in the metaphysical flow or something else?

You're forgetting one half of it which is understanding, while I value the benefits of struggle, you can have struggle without advocating for harming other souls. The flip side of understanding; we find love through understanding, we find harmony and communication through understanding other people, we cooperate through understanding, it's a duality that shouldn't be tipped. Working out because you work an office job and learning to understand your brothers around you so you can cooperate with them etc. Why should one ever take precedence over a balance?

Evola said a place like pol was a neccessary for civilization to progress.
Am ideological battleground where ideas face the test of survival of the fittest.
Sup Forums isnt right wing because its edgy, its called being right for a reason.
If more Sup Forums fags actually read evolas books instead of just looking at the words and getting pissed off at it to be pissed off at something then they'd realize evola was literally as spiteful as this place is.
Ride the tiger was just him calling everyone dumb fucking niggers and explaining why theyre stupid fucking pavement apes as well.

Sounds like you're ready for dialectical materialism

Nigger you act like the improvement is the reason to fight when it's a side effect of being too pissed of to be able to not call someone out for being a fucking idiot so you come to terms with the fact on some deeper level you must just love to fight people otherwise why else would one be unable to hold their tongue.

Why are you playing dumb? You know you haven't read him. Did you suddenly develop dementia and forget why we're talking? You incredulously asked someone who's actually read Evola if user personally had the same views about conflict when it comes to romance, showing your ignorance of the fact that Evola addressed this. You weren't just disagreeing, it's not like this is subjective lmao the posts are still there. Disingenuous faggot.

>How can you be more objective than sense perception?
What is the assumption that sense perception is objective based on? If you can't come up with anything but materialistic justifications, it isn't logically sufficient as per Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
You merely assume sense perception bears some objective value, since it seems self evident.
Another fun exercise is to prove the existence of matter logically, without referring to anything supra-material.

> It sounds like you are saying to hold the subjective spiritual beliefs above sense reality which is fine
Why do you assume spiritual beliefs are subjective. I'm saying that any and all philosophical claims require a claim of an objective basis. This basis can't be sufficiently explained if it is presumed to be material.

>but how can we call it truth or objective with so many contrary and conflicting spiritual truths around?
This is precisely the ill of modernity, only exasperated by the information age. If one tries to approach this strictly through rational means you can never achieve a stable conclusion, as I explained before.

>Personally my religious truths are personal and I dont think they can be anything other than personal and internal.
So are they true or ad hoc lies, if you do not consider them to have an objective basis?

You act like your perceptions are accurate and objective.
Maybe you just like shitty things and cant admit it to yourself you make bad decisions so you make bad arguements trying to rationalize your perspective when youve never even tried to see a different one.
Its rather naive to assume youre right without first making sure you arent just retarded.
Fuck nigger you act like people arent surprised when they find out they need glasses.

This.
You know when someone has read evola because he was a man who was spiteful enough to literally make sure to cover everything because he knew dumb niggers would try to use dumb nigger arguements.

>For what purpose exactly? To participate in the metaphysical flow or something else?

The purpose is spiritual virility. Otherwise you are subsumed and have yourself destroyed. One participates in the transcendent by doing so, i.e enduring rather than dying. It's not necessarily a question of "right" or "wrong" as a matter of which way you want to spitually orientate yourself.

You fucking retard
> You incredulously asked someone who's actually read Evola if user personally had the same views about conflict when it comes to romance
> Evola addressed this
> personally had the same views
I know you're trying to sound smart on the internet but come on, you should have caught on by now that it was a simple question about an anons personal views if he agrees with Evola on conflict and if he would apply them to romance, not Evola. Just fuck off now.

> What is the assumption that sense perception is objective based on?
So you're saying that because the objectivity of sense perception relies on sense perception it becomes circular? Doesn't that just make it consistent according to what is provable?

> Why do you assume spiritual beliefs are subjective
Because despite your thought experiment about the objective, spiritual beliefs are internal, personal and differ from person to person. It would be inconsistent from contrary spiritual beliefs to both be true in the objective sense.

> If one tries to approach this strictly through rational means
Then it's not truth then is it? Wouldn't be call it something else if you looking for irrational metaphysical truths that can be rational proven true?

> So are they true or ad hoc lies, if you do not consider them to have an objective basis?
Depends on whether I've come to these beliefs because of my soul coming through or if I've come to them from a purely chemical or mechanical way, in either case I can't confirm whether my internal beliefs and truths are true and objective when compared to your internal beliefs and truths?

> You act like your perceptions are accurate and objective.
Problem when you get to disproving invisible spiders and spaghetti monsters is either you can prove the sense perception isn't objective or you can't, either way we can only confirm or deny objectivity through that which is consistent.

>I believe hey are also generated by trying to graft Christianity over old pagan beliefs.
Christianity was moulded from Egyptian myths, Greek logic, Jewish customs, Roman law and Germanic virility.
The "barbarian" peoples of Europe had no problems adopting Christianity and it didn't make them lose martial valor until the enlightenment essentially denied religion.

Like if I read Hitler and he talks about Jews and Slavs and we're talking about Jews and someone asks me whether my personal views carry on to slavs as well, it doesnt fucking matter what hitler says about slavs if I agree with him on jews but not on slavs, Got it yet? Fucking spastic

This speaks to me.
>Sup Forums is juan person xd

>thinking you can agree or disagree with evola
Nigger you fucking idiot do you know what objective means mr. smartguy?

>adjective
>1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Evola isn't something you agree or disagree with, if you actually read the material you'd know this he devotes half the god damn books to backing up the statements he makes while bitching about the fact it still won't be enough for some dipshits.

Evola was right about everything he predicted to an eerie degree.
Even predicted faggots like you too big of bitches to ever admit when they're wrong or got caught in a lie.
Youre not lying to anyone here at this point, only yourself.
Read Evola, his writing isn't something you are able to disagree with.

I knew (because liars are predictable, it's all about filling the holes in the like) you would capitalize on my use of "personally" to try to claim you were only asking user HIS views and whether they aligned with Evola, rather than inquiring in ignorance whether user could possibly feel the same way about romance, I say in ignorance because you were as yet unaware that Evola had addressed it. Now that I've brought it to your attention you've reoriented and now claim you were in fact asking him if he agreed with Evola on this issue. Let's see if that's how your post reads.
>Is that how you approach your relationships with women? That the coming together of the feminine and masculine soul can be done in anyway other than through love, why should it be any different in cooperating in society, why must society evolve the spirit through bloodshed? I see the benefits of struggle but i dont see the necessity.
>Is that how you approach your relationships with women?
This question came out of nowhere and makes no reference to Evola's views. You were trying to illustrate your point by applying his views on conflict to romance, without knowing he'd already done so himself. Nice try though.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me which translator to go for by name