T R A D I T I O N

Thoughts on this man?

I'm curious what Catholics in particular think of his ideas. Were his criticisms of Christianity valid? Where were they wrong?

If you haven't read at least one of his books do not participate.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EhGEGIBGLu8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

>read books
>pol
pick one

Bumping because I hope you aren't right

I'm not a Catholic, but Evola turned me off with his mysticism shit.

Care to elaborate, user?

Julius Evola, Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex

>The much-vaunted sex appeal of American women is drawn from films, reviews and pin-ups, and is in large print fictitious. A recent medical survey in the United States showed that 75 per cent of young American women are without strong sexual feeling and instead of satisfying their libido they seek pleasure narcissistically in exhibitionism, vanity and the cult of fitness and health in a sterile sense.

>American girls have 'no hang-ups about sex'; they are 'easy going' for the man who sees the whole sexual process as something in isolation thereby making it uninteresting and matter-of-fact, which, at such a level, it is meant to be. Thus, after she has been taken to the cinema or a dance, it is something like American good manners for the girl to let herself be kissed - this doesn't mean anything. American women are characteristically frigid and materialistic. The man who 'has his way' with an American girl is under a material obligation to her. The woman has granted a material favour. In cases of divorce American law overwhelmingly favours the woman. American women will divorce readily enough when they see a better bargain. It is frequently the case in America that a woman will be married to one man but already 'engaged' to a future husband, the man she plans to marry after a profitable divorce.

Some of his critiques of Christianity are valid. He is waay more critical of protestantism. The problem is that he doesn't have another religion to propose. And he admits this problem tacitly in his later works. So I will still stick with Catholicism.

Guenon, who inspired Evola to traditionalism was way more favorable to Catholicism.

Fair enough user. I'd say my position is not dissimilar.
Echo of war?
Also if that chart is implying that capitalism produces a male surplus I am extremely curious how. I've never heard of such a thing.

>So I will still stick with Catholicism
You will be killed on the day of the rope

Yes. Guenon impressed me a great deal when I read "The Reign of Quantity and Signs of the Times". I am not certain where he and Evola have true divergence, but what I appreciate about Evola is that he does a better job of illustrating and demonstrating his ideas rather than Guenon whose ideas are so abstractly metaphysical that they are somewhat harder to understand for me.

Now now. Settle down. This isn't a thread for shitposting.

>complains but offers no alternative
t. brainlet philosophy

You a Protestant cuck?

Goes for you too bud. Literally any other thread on this board would be a better place to do this.

I was just responding to the insult, doesn't Evola say that the traditional view is to strike down evil?

There are a tremendous number of bots, leftists, trolls and buffoons on this board at any time of day. If you strike down each and every last one fruitful discussion will be shouldered out.

Anyone else have a hard time following his writing sometimes? It seems to take flight for coherent explanation all to often. Though the few quotes and understandable passages are gems, and I agree with most of the things I read from him.

Yes. It almost seems as though he didn't attempt to explain things if he thought they weren't as important.

He is right.

reading is dramatically overrated, only brainlets read. real intellectuals just know everything memetically.

Imo guenon is far more profound.

Nice thread but since 2016 the board is swamped even worse than before, and there's no time to catch up. Evola is standard reading material for the right-wing but reddit kiddies don't read of course.

Anyway why are you interested in Catholics in particular? He thought Christianity was only half-baked spirituality (like he does with most things) and that the Catholic church improved on it by removing some faith and adding some 'pagan' stuff. But I have to say I was never very impressed with his characterization of the Church, and it's difficult for a traditionalist to argue that pure tradition was improved by adding random pagan stuff.

I suspect that the enormous fracture on the right between christians and pagans leads to the latter claiming evola for their own and using him against the 'christcucks', but catholics tend to agree with criticisms and judaic parts of the catholic church and don't really dislike evola. A lot of the meme wars come down to "do you think Christianity covers the essence of pacifist leftism?" like doctrine of inner light, slave morality and that hitler quote about Christians being pussies (who ever figured that? damn). Many catholics don't like the counter-revolution in the church and of course evola had no knowledge of the pre-reformation church.

Consider this statement by evola:
>It is well-known that it was in the terms of a reaction against Catholicism that, beginning with the Renaissance, the reaffirmation of man and life took place.
Does this make sense to you?

I can't say with certainty that I understand the quote without knowing the context.

>Moreover, the idea that the West owes to Catholicism all the elements of Tradition it ever knew cannot be accepted without specific reservations. The composite character of Catholicism should not be forgotten. I have previously remarked that wherever this character manifested itself as a force promoting order and hierarchy, thus providing a support for European society, this was mainly thanks to the influence of the Roman-Germanic world. Conversely, whenever the specifically Christian component triumphed, Catholicism acted in the West in an antitraditional, rather than traditional way. The lunar, priestly spirit, its peculiar dualism, the various views of Jewish origin that became an integral part of the Christian spirit, all these things represented in Catholicism an obstacle that prevented the possibility of its infusing into Europe a spirituality in conformity with and proper to what I have called the Northern Light. Moreover Catholicism has caused the more real forces, after they found the way leading upwards obstructed, to flow into the material domain and realize in it the characteristic values of the Western soul. It is well-known that it was in the terms of a reaction against Catholicism that, beginning with the Renaissance, the reaffirmation of man and life took place. This represented an evident deviation and yet it was largely precipitated by the context I have just described.

Ah yes now I remember reading that. I suppose I am interested in a Catholic counter-argument, one which is familiar with his ideas and which is not an obtuse negation.

Well the counter-argument probably features at least some reference to the medieval Catholic church, as well as a general STRONG suspicion of paganism. Evola is a big fan of the inner European Being whose spirituality should not be fucked with by "outside" influences. He ventures some sketches of what this "Northern Light" would mean, and of course it might be that he is wrong on this interpretation since it comes mostly from myth and historical research. His ideas about the Catholic church can similarly be disagreed with, like how people nowadays complain that the pope kissed some muslim's feet. Yes degeneracy and corruption everywhere, but since nobody can get at the 'essence' of either Christianity or the Church, there is the possibility of restoration. Besides evola has enormous theories about spirituality and cycles of time, and a Catholic might say that they don't care about any of that pagan stuff. It's certainly true that evola's ideas about spirituality are not compatible with any particular church, so it's hard to imagine an argument between the two. We can disagree about facts and interpretations, but as to the true nature of Christianity? I just wish pagans and christians had some more patience for each other.

>zing
Hehehehe high five, reddit!

He was kinda a sperg. He did a lot of weird things like walk around during aerial bombardment.

>Wish pagans and christians had some more patience for each other
Aye, brother.

In a way his belief that the inner European spirit shouldn't be affected by external sources is an inverted form of the Jewish complaint about Christ, that he brought salvation to gentiles and did not fulfill the "Faustian" destiny of the Jews to rule as the chosen people. The Jews hated Christ for not fulfilling this faustian desire, and Evola laments that Christianity sabotaged the European faustian desire.

To "calmly contemplate his fate."

>hated Christ
*hate

Exactly right, exactly right. And it's made even stranger by his theories of the cycle of things and the relation between the various kinds of spirits. In spite of the almost inevitable existence of the "lunar effect", he nonetheless seems to want to cut a wide swath through the spiritual landscape and declare open opposition to many parts of Christianity. Why was the Roman pantheon so effective? I think Evola would say that Christians divorced the king and priest (esp. after jesus) and so without the material/sovereign integrated into spirituality the two are left to drift. Well, maybe, but he has some trouble explaining all the hierarchy that existed in the middle ages. He would say that's all IN SPITE of the church but dude, c'mon, that's some serious autism. You can see judaic slave morality in spiritual form yet insist that both the romanticism and strict social relations were all pagan? I dunno I'm not even a Christian but I have some trouble with this perspective. Guenon had similar issues when he talked about the cycles of spirits, so the church became an alien influence to him.

>and it's difficult for a traditionalist to argue that pure tradition was improved by adding random pagan stuff
Well, if you think about it Christianity itself was an "improvement" of Hebrew traditions by the addition of pagan elements; or to be more accurate, the addition of pagan philosophy through the contact with the Hellenic culture.

But Evola is just following Nietzsche in his view that the Renaissance and the reintegration of paganism represented the reaffirmation of life after the spiritual stagnation which resulted from dogmatic Catholicism. It's not about the random stuff that it stands for as much as it is about awakening instincts that were simply dormant.

And such reintegrations are probably necessary for the continuation and renewal of any given tradition. The cultural challenge the right-wing faces today is therefore the same, albeit under distinct circumstances, the Catholic church faced during the 15th century. But I don't think Catholics nowadays care nearly as much about Europe as they cared back then, otherwise they'd be iron pilling people instead of welcoming refugees.

>Evola is just following Nietzsche
Yeah it's seriously obvious how much the two align, but what I don't like about the rennaissance argument is that he thinks it's a "light breaking through the cloud" moment of pure being. Well maybe it was but I can't help be suspicious that he likes it for the pagan elements. Btw I'm fine with saying Christianity went through several versions (and fractures), but it's sometimes a little difficult to argue religion in a historical sense like that. If traditions and concepts were picked up from pagan sources and made Christian, well then the whole becomes a kind of frankenstein abomination and the essence of it being a religion is lost. If spirituality is just cobbled together high culture then there really is no difference between any of them, so to wax poetically about roman/greek paganism but decry catholicism as semitic and foreign sounds like prejudice. In fact the whole project stinks of prejudice but it's hard for me to put a finger on.

>The cultural challenge the right-wing faces today is therefore the same, albeit under distinct circumstances, the Catholic church faced during the 15th century.
I have often wondered what Luther would make of the last 500 years, given that it seems towards the end of his life he had already begun to realize in what way the church had been corrupted. But he had already dealt such a blow to them that he could probably only watch in horror as schism and civil war overtook Europe. The difference between the right-wing now and then is that there is no real catholic church right now. The secular democracies have indeed divorced caesar from jesus, and now the former does the educating. I would say it's more accurate that the right-wing faces the dual problem of building a new aristocracy along with their church, preferably not separated like protestantism. I suppose that's a bit like what the natsocs tried although their legitimacy came from "the people", which is very modern.

If I recall correctly he would say that king/priest split is more traceable to Protestantism in a historical sense, but he also faulted Christianity for having "unresolved tension" in terms of sovereignty. Who is ultimately in charge, the Church or the King? If the Church is in charge, we have rule by brahmins, the priestly class, which is lunar, feminine and degenerate. But if the King is in charge, then the sacred isn't the highest value, which is degenerate, OR the Church doesn't mean anything, which means we aren't Christians any more.

I suppose it's arguable from a Christian perspective that it is a pregnant tension, an anticipation, of the return of the King of Kings. But in the meantime we get Guelph/Ghibelline wars.

Historical sense indeed, but then there is that awkward part in the new testament:
>The principles: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) and ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s (Matt. 22:21), represented a direct attack on the concept of traditional sovereignty and of that unity of the two powers that had formally been reestablished in imperial Rome. According to Gelasius I, after Christ, no man can simultaneously be king and priest; the unity of sacerdotium and regnum, when it is vindicated by a king, is a diabolical deception and a counterfeit of the true priestly regality that belongs to Christ alone. It was precisely at this point that the contrast between Christian and Roman ideas escalated into an open conflict. When Christianity developed the Roman pantheon was so inclusive that even the cult of the Christian Savior could have found a proper place within it, among other cults, as a particular cult derived from a schism in Judaism. As I have previously suggested, it was typical of the imperial universalism to exercise a higher unifying and organizing function over and above any particular cult, which it did not need to deny or to oppose. What was required though, was an act demonstrating a superordained fides in reference to the principles “from above” embodied in the representative of the empire, namely, in the “Augustus.” The Christians refused to perform this very act, consisting of a ritual and sacrificial offering made before the imperial symbol, since they claimed that it was incompatible with their faith; this was the only reason why there was such an epidemic of martyrs, which may have appeared as pure folly in the eyes of the Roman magistrates.

He basically tries to understand the medieval times through modern (post-reformation) interpretations and finds it impossible, so the glue that held society together must have been the (remnants of) roman/germanic spirit.

>frankenstein abomination
I suppose Evola felt that anything that "gets it right" is not an abomination, and that Paganism wound its way into Christianity because of how awesome Paganism is and Christians had enough sense to incorporate it.

But generally I think your analysis is spot on.

Well said.

>He would say that's all IN SPITE of the church but dude, c'mon, that's some serious autism. You can see judaic slave morality in spiritual form yet insist that both the romanticism and strict social relations were all pagan?
Not the church but Christianity. As you posted before, the roots of the religion lie in the lunar priestly spirituality. Christianity was for most of its infancy a mixture of underground mystery religion and renegade Jewish sect, but that changed when Rome adopted the religion through Constantine, who molded it after the Roman solar culture, giving it form, and ultimately establish the hierarchy from which the Catholic church would born.

So I think the strict social relations at least are definitely pagan. Romanticism may be 50/50 though, since it was present in both Hebrew and pagan cultures.

>If traditions and concepts were picked up from pagan sources and made Christian, well then the whole becomes a kind of frankenstein abomination and the essence of it being a religion is lost. If spirituality is just cobbled together high culture then there really is no difference between any of them, so to wax poetically about roman/greek paganism but decry catholicism as semitic and foreign sounds like prejudice.
It is prejudice indeed, but one derived from superficiality rather than genuine opposition .
I would't call this whole process a Frakenstein though. It's more like a symbiosis. Cultures, and consequently religions, may be seem as organic developments of groups of people, despite the fact that religions often claim atemporal origin. Whether either side accepts this or not is another issue.

>I would say it's more accurate that the right-wing faces the dual problem of building a new aristocracy along with their church, preferably not separated like protestantism
I agree.

The Roman Catholic Church is the most anti-white organization on earth. You and your fellow catholics will be killed on the day of the rope.

>Paganism wound its way into Christianity because of how awesome Paganism is and Christians had enough sense to incorporate it.
This is also the exact argument Christians make regarding the conversion of the romans. What symmetry!

>The roots of the religion lie in the lunar priestly spirituality
To be fair, Christianity isn't "done" until "The King of Kings" returns to literally conquer the Earth, which in my estimation is a very solar prophesy, and one which Evola doesn't even discuss in "Revolt Against the Modern World".

>the roots of the religion lie in the lunar priestly spirituality
But certainly no Christian would agree with this, and again this premise forces you to view the entire holy roman empire as basically pagans forcing Christianity to be solar. Why did they bother exactly? It's not like the romans were known for their squeamishness and tolerance, especially considering their vast experience with "renegade Jewish sects" as you call them. I feel like this analysis mixes both religious doctrine and historical fact, claiming that yes spiritual evolution is possible but at the same that no, Christianity can not escape its lunar character except through subordination with pagan solar elements. Is this a historical or spiritual argument? Why weren't the Christians simply slaughtered?

>It's more like a symbiosis. Cultures, and consequently religions, may be seem as organic developments of groups of people, despite the fact that religions often claim atemporal origin.
The reason I'm hammering on this point is because Evola claims a lunar character as the basis, something which presumably can not be changed simply by adding crap on top. So what exactly is this evolution and 'incorporation', since it's so central to all arguments? We have an uncomfortable mix of Christianity being lunar because of slave morality but also because of the historical existence of the romans as supreme authority ('caesar'). Then they converted and Christianity became solar, but it was actually still the romans? The prejudice I mentioned is skating over all this confusion without much care and finding the 'right' interpretation each time: christians bad/lunar, romans good/solar. It would be VERY HELPFUL for the modern right-wing if some of this could at least be disentangled a little.

This is genuinely not meant to be bait here, but I think Catholics and Pagans would both agree that Protestantism is definitively a very lunar version of Christianity.

You should listen to Carlyle praise and fawn over Cromwell though, as the expression of that indomitable inconquerable European spirit, even when he himself was quite a fan of kings. I'm afraid there's about a thousand theories in which protestantism was some brave rebellion against dead spirituality and not just (jewish/lunar) subversion. It came on the scene as some sort of spiritual evolution but mostly as explicit and murderous anti-catholic sentiment. Is that lunar? They also had that 'work ethic' and built some empires, and it's only from history that we can really see the fall of kings and aristocracy clearly. It was a 400 year long fall punctuated by revolutionary violence and destruction of hierarchy, so probably the protestants had the wrong idea.

But then here we are: Christianity was made solar/hierarchical through pagan elements, and then a THOUSAND YEARS later the jews come back to finish the job?

>murderous anti-catholic sentiment. Is that lunar?
Bloodshed isn't intrinsically solar or lunar. Perhaps squeamishness is lunar, but our good friends south of the Sahara are very clearly lunar and very clearly violent. Protestants slaughtered Catholics, was it to rule Catholics? Was it an imperialist impulse? It certainly doesn't appear that way to me. And while Protestants were imperialists in the secular sense, they were only so while they were secularly hierarchical. Protestants are now spiritually and politically liberal. Not much empire building going on any more.

That's fair enough, but the protestants truly wanted to bring God's kingdom to earth, build new jerusalem so to speak. They fractured and became democratic, but again was this inevitable spiritual evolution ("christianity is lunar after all") or subversion or perhaps corruption by material affairs ("power")? I don't know if you can call modern protestants protestant because they seem to have abandoned both the priest and king in favor of the mob.

Some carlyle quotes cause I'm sympathetic to the man:

>“THE Scotch People, the first beginners of this grand Puritan Revolt, which we may define as an attempt to bring the Divine Law of the Bible into actual practice in men’s affairs on the Earth, are still one and all resolute for that object; but they are getting into sad difficulties as to realising it. Not easy to realize such a thing: besides true will, there need heroic gifts, the highest that Heaven gives, for realising it! Gifts which have not been vouchsafed [for] the Scotch People at present. . . .

And note especially this observation:
>“The meaning of the Scotch Covenant was, That God’s divine Law of the Bible should be put in practice in these Nations: verily it, and not the Four Surplices at Allhallowtide, or any Formula of cloth or sheepskin here or elsewhere which merely pretended to be it. But then the Covenant says expressly, there is to be a Stuart King in the business: we cannot do without our Stuart King! Given a divine Law of the Bible on one hand, and a Stuart King, Charles the First or Charles Second, on the other: alas, did History ever present a more irreducible cast of equations in this world? I pity the poor Scotch Pedant Governors; still more the poor Scotch People who had no other to follow! . . .

Probably because it doesn't change how the religion came to be or its social structure, since it's just eschatology. The idea of a single, paternal God is also very solar, and yet it's based on that lunar spirituality of the Jewish priest.

>I feel like this analysis mixes both religious doctrine and historical fact, claiming that yes spiritual evolution is possible but at the same that no, Christianity can not escape its lunar character except through subordination with pagan solar elements. Is this a historical or spiritual argument?
It's more historical than spiritual. It underlies the physiological processes that generate cultures/religions.
I can't say for sure if there's no escaping from the lunar character from Christianity, but I believe it should be conformed to its status as subordinate to the solar.

Christians, of course, may disagree with me. Regardless of that I think there's at least some scriptural basis for that view. Christ himself said "Unto Caesar..." and submitted himself to the Roman authorities, the reason being that worldly power was bestowed upon Rome by God himself. From John 19:11:
>Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above(...)
In my view this provides the basis for how the church would be modeled and how the temporal (solar) authority of the kings and emperors would be given religious legitimacy for the next two millennia.

>Why weren't the Christians simply slaughtered?
Well, they were. For centuries as we know, until the Romans realized they could be converted. It's ironic to think of the rise of Christianity as the religion being converted and not the pagans, but in the sense we're discussing that was exactly what happened. Roman Catholicism and 1st century Christianity are really that different, as a solar/lunar dualism.

I understand and sympathize with your perspective, but I guess I have to admit I feel rather unconvinced by the distinction into pagan/christian nature of every element. I agree that
>It's ironic to think of the rise of Christianity as the religion being converted and not the pagans, but in the sense we're discussing that was exactly what happened.
is supremely ironic but touches also on the difficulty of describing the 'pure' form of something and its physical form after mixing with the reality of the day. Historical analysis is useful but we are really in the business of mapping out spirituality with sovereign affairs. It's a little hard to swallow claiming to start with an assessment of spiritual nature when the subsequent analysis is almost dialectical materialism (shudder). I'm not sure how to really make my point I guess except to say I'm not convinced of the historical arguments.

youtube.com/watch?v=EhGEGIBGLu8

...

Some more notes.
>I can't say for sure if there's no escaping from the lunar character from Christianity, but I believe it should be conformed to its status as subordinate to the solar.
You run into difficulties with both catholics and protestants in this respect i would say, since like you quoted after the catholics say the church is God's authority on earth, while protestants want the state to put god's law into practice, so "make jesus king". If the church of tomorrow were to merge the solar authority of kings with the existence of the priests, then what are the priests to do with any paganism still present in the kings? And if the priests are lunar by nature, won't this be an eternal conflict, especially if the king is not jesus himself? Nevertheless I agree with your sentiment about the necessity of this marriage, and see quite a bit of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven in it.
>Well, they were. For centuries as we know
I shouldn't have said "slaughtered" but instead "eradicated", which might have been in the power of the romans depending on how fundamental one considers Christianity to human nature. Note that the same is true of any pagan custom.

I too am sympathetic to Carlyle. But I can't say that, if adopting Puritan premises, the Puritans were successful. Did they create a new Jerusalem? Not as far as I can tell. What did they do wrong, according to the Protestant perception? Why were they unable to stop themselves from splintering, factionalizing, democratizing? Perhaps they needed a strong authority to unite their efforts and resolve disputes. But if they needed a strong authority to unite their efforts and resolve disputes in order to realize their Jerusalem, how could they be justified in rejecting the Church's authority? Either the idea that Christians are meant to make a "new Jerusalem" is flawed, or in order to realize it you require unifying authority, so as far as I can tell the Puritans were basically just wrong.

>the physiological processes that generate cultures/religions
There are physiological processes that play a part in most human affairs, but are you claiming that all civilizations and religions are fundamentally an effect of materialistic bio-determinism?

>The Romans converted the Christians
I see what you're saying, but Catholics claim that the origin of the Church dates back to the 1st century.

>The Romans converted the Christians
kek, it was an imperial game of Chicken wasn't it? Seems the Romans flinched first.

>Perhaps they needed a strong authority to unite their efforts and resolve disputes.
According to Carlyle this was exactly what Cromwell was, a creature of strong will that resolved to grapple with all the reformation forces and LEAD.
>how could they be justified in rejecting the Church's authority
Well obviously this is difficult, but I believe that they viewed the church as the higher authority than the kings, who received their mandate from the church. Since the church was corrupted by material affairs and all sorts of heresy according to the (supposedly) super-pious protestants, the whole edifice was rotten and had to be torn down. I guess maybe you could say Cromwell realized that the unifying part among all reformers was their opposition to the catholic priests and their kings.

> Did they create a new Jerusalem?
>Either the idea that Christians are meant to make a "new Jerusalem" is flawed, or in order to realize it you require unifying authority
As I mentioned by way of the Carlyle quotes, they were not averse to a unifying authority and readily followed cromwell. However I imagine they considered this a military necessity against their rulers, not a mandate for cromwell to become the new royalty. In many ways it really did resemble a genuine rebellion or revolution, with all the attendant "no no we won't become despots" that goes with it. New jerusalem is built by implementing God's law on earth, so every means of attaining that is legitimate as long as you can get laws (from a king?) that make it so. Now how much do we need parliament to make it so? And to what degree are the aristocracies we have now corrupted by the Catholics? I think the protestants couldn't figure that out and so the eternal revolution was born, something like that. The introduction of liberalism and democracy is a very strange one and a long story I guess.

I don't know if you would agree with me here, but I think this "purity" is just a matter of semiotics. Both parties may have the perception of practicing their pure and undistilled traditions while in reality they only do so relative to how well they interact with "the other." A modern believer might have a problem with the idea of embracing elements from another religion but the reality of his belief doesn't necessarily change because of that, the important thing being the efficiency of the priestly caste in representing the faith to him.

Now the Catholic church obviously knew that by the time it became the state religion of the empire, reason why they worked hard to incorporate so many pagan traditions within their own while at the same time disposing of those that they couldn't realistically rebrand or adapt as Christian.

This goes back to the point of conflict between religious and secular authority. If the church was able to marry those opposing forces at that time, it's then simply a question of how to adapt that principle to modernity. I'm not sure if any of those traditions will survive as we know them but the culture-producing drive behind them, as well as the solar/lunar dualism, won't just go away and need to be accepted by Catholics in particular if they ever hope to maintain the west and not trade it for the third world.

>There are physiological processes that play a part in most human affairs, but are you claiming that all civilizations and religions are fundamentally an effect of materialistic bio-determinism?
Yes.

>I see what you're saying, but Catholics claim that the origin of the Church dates back to the 1st century.
Because Catholics make no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity.

Hmm I have to admit I'm not really great with this kind of "societal forces" analysis. It seems to divorce power and authority entirely from "religious elements" that people may have. You seem to be under the impression that the solar/lunar story is a psychological analysis only, and the spiritual parts are just ornamentation over this essential character. I'll have to think on this a bit, since I'm having trouble getting rid of the feeling of being in the presence of dialectical materialism and (whig) historical inevitability.

You and I are in agreement I believe, broadly. But how do we put an end to the eternal revolution? Or more specifically, how do we take the wind out of its doctrinal sails? As far as I can tell, any fundamentally (modern) reactionary perspective is incompatible with Protestantism. (Carlyle gets a pass.)

>Yes.
So you're a, in a nutshell, a racist Hegelian?
This is a phenomenon I've noticed emerging among "alt-rightish" types as of late. HBD marxism of sorts.

>You seem to be under the impression that the solar/lunar story is a psychological analysis only, and the spiritual parts are just ornamentation over this essential character.
I don't think there's an actual spiritual sphere in the sense of a force or anything like that. What spiritually means in my view is human physiology expressed by its accumulated cultural and linguistic body of knowledge.

>So you're a, in a nutshell, a racist Hegelian?
No, just a racist. Although I do agree with some aspects of Hegel's philosophy insofar as I accept materialistic determinism.

Checked. I'm afraid that I don't have a clear enough picture of the eternal revolution yet to really say anything in this direction. Certainly I don't feel convinced by Evola's optimism-in-pessimism diagnosis, and most cycle-of-civilization theories rely on prophecy which has proven to be very unreliable (ahem, savitri devi). Btw am I correct in hearing a bit of the neo-reactionary in your terminology? If that's the case, considering our current station, perhaps the eternal revolution might mentally take the form of liberalism. But we have to remember that it must be spiritual in nature first, even if societal conditions push the spirit down a certain path. Right now it seems to me a proper analogy to say that the revolution has been raging for so long that we have entire social institutions devoted to (lucrative) protest, the burning up of tradition and social bonds. To stop this fire from burning we would have to root out entire doctrines and schools of thought, a massive complex of arsonist training institutes. If this is not to be done militarily, then the meme wars are going to have to heat up quite a bit before anything gets done. Well this is rambling.

Anyway, it's a little unfortunate that the term 'reactionary' has taken up a kind of strange form these days. I'm curious what you mean exactly, since the originals were against the revolution but in favor of parliamentary monarchy. Parliaments and kings you say? Yet neo-reactionaries are supposed to be in favor of absolute sovereignty, provided the king is strictly bound to purely material concerns. Purely material you say? Both of these are not really protestant, but considering the trajectory of the latter wouldn't we be able to predict utter fracturing and degeneracy into deism/atheism? How many supposedly protestant denominations are universalist by now? The reaction of hitler was completely occult and pagan. It failed, but I don't know if it was really reaction.

Materialistic determinism originates with Hegel, thus you are a Hegelian. If you are also racist you are a racist Hegelian.

I must say I'm surprised a historical determinist found their way into a traditionalism thread.

It seems it should be difficult for a person like yourself to apply evola's theories as mere physiology. He doesn't think spirituality is just an
>accumulated cultural and linguistic body of knowledge.
Anyway, would I be correct in guessing you more or less identify the solar with leadership and lunar with submission?

>rediscovery and subsequent romanticisation
funded by the Church
>reactionary against the Church
what?
It was probably a reaction against the parts which shouldn't have been included.
The New Testament is THE Bible.
The rest can be discarded somewhat.

>Hegel's philosophy insofar as I accept materialistic determinism.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. You don't like the renaissance and figure the protestants were right in burning down the catholic church? How does that relate to evola's claim about the nature of the renaissance?

>Materialistic determinism originates with Hegel
As a philosophical concept. Hegel didn't originate matter nor the deterministic nature of the universe though.

>It seems it should be difficult for a person like yourself to apply evola's theories as mere physiology
A lot of what Evola believed in is just that really, but unlike Nietzsche he wasn't satisfied with the worldly hence his mysticism.

I'm not saying Hegel was a materialist if that's what you understood.

You seem quite the true believer.

In what way?

what happen with the bloodline of this people look quite sterile nowadays

I liked reading Revolt Against the Modern World, and I think one can draw a lot of stuff from Evola.
But in order for any of it to be appliable to today's politics, you gotta elaborate a lot.
He wasn't particularly antisemitic, and didn't come up with any alternatives to christianity, even though he admits that the "principles long gone" have used catholicism as a vehicle.
Also, his critique of the racial question as a merely physical/scientific crusade is something most people on the far right need to get to know.
It's worth reading, I need to go further. I was reading fascism from the right, but I'm currently stuck on a paper about terrorism :PPP

Well having materialistic determinism, evolutionary psychology and social psychology as the basis for everything. Perhaps it could be called believing in the existence of some sort of 'scientific' analysis of history.

Perhaps in the specific context of Anglo history that's the etymological origin of reactionary, but to me it sounds more like old-school conservatism a-la Edmund Burke.

Neoreactionaries are absolutists in some cases, but some think the government should be run similar to a corporation with the "sovereign" being a CEO of sorts. Look up steel cameralism if you're interested in that idea.

Military action is already occurring. Military action is always occurring. It is the infantile mind which conceives of violence as something categorically separate from peace. Every pocket of peace that has ever existed was found within a ring of swords. Military action is destroying us by its inaction. Western military/police force is actively preventing Western men from employing the force at their very own disposal to preserve their own existence. Meme wars will not preserve the existence of our people, secure a future for our children, or our legacy.

Which is to say that the peaceful transfer of power would be ideal, that it would be preferable to preserve infrastructure, to avoid death and suffering, but when it is illegal to lock your door and the police do not keep trespassers off your land, well, their force may be "passive" but it's still destructive.

He misspelt a word therefore he is disqualified from further consideration.

The things you list are just fields of study, the basis for everything are natural laws and physical processes. But I'm curious about what else could be used to analyse history in your opinion.

Legit discussion? Thanks user.
I've got a big idea I've been exploring along the Apollonian/Dionysian, and I think I've got a case for how network theory dictates their inevitable rise in an arbitrary, sufficiently complex network, and what constitutes Apollonian and Dionysian styles. It's long as shit tho to walk through every step, I've tried posting it here a few times but I can't get a proper discussion.

I'm under no illusions that Evola would like this--a mathematical, materialist perspective would have appalled him. It widens the door to esotericism to those who limit their worldview to mathematics, however.

The short version is to imagine a huge binary matrix, where each 0 or 1 can be related to others with Boolean logic. We can know how these work - once you start to vary the avg. number of Boolean connections each node has, you realize that there is a narrow region of avg. connections that is compatible with living systems. On one extreme, the system is of fixed form, since signals cannot propagate if there aren't connections. A pure Apollo. On the other, the system is formless and chaotic, changing radically at each time step. Dionysus. In the middle when they are balanced against each other, the system acquires regions of fixed and cycling values, and homeostasis related to what are called "state attractors," which you might know better as archetypes. The same mathematics underlie how massive enzymatic networks give rise to cell types.

There's a shitload more here--you can analyze Apollonian and Dionysian strategies alongside r-K theory on fitness landscapes and the results are startling. Dionysus also has the incredible power of "diversity begets diversity" -- a new enzyme catalyzes a new enzyme, or a new burrowing creature aerates seafloor mud to create niches for new creatures that drive an explosion of forms (likely not very fit). Its wacky to think that the reason progressives are of poor fitness is hard-baked in to the structure of theuniverse

Materialism is incompatible with experiential knowledge of the transcendent.

>Which is to say that the peaceful transfer of power would be ideal
yet an impossibility. there will be no reconciliation with these kikes, the only way this ends is with the extermination of all jews and shabbos goyim, and it WILL happen. soon.

I know it's going to sound flippant, perhaps rude, perhaps dismissive, but there are observable principles which are not perceptible to those who cannot conceptualize beyond mere matter.

>old-school conservatism a-la Edmund Burke
Well I think the actual reactionaries around the revolution were a bit more radical than mr. Burke, who was more of a reformed Whig that wanted to be conservative as you say. He was more or less a contemporary but I don't think he would really appreciate the label as it was used then.

I am familiar with neo-reactionary thought and
>some think the government should be run similar to a corporation with the "sovereign" being a CEO of sorts
was what I attempted to describe by a king "bound to strictly material concerns". The various cameralisms do not impress me in their scope of human nature and seem more like abstract (libertarian? legal) works of engineering.

>Military action is always occurring.
Sovereignty and rule is always occurring, but military action is the threat behind law not its expression. Violence is categorically different from peace, since the entire problem is trying to discover and built a social structure where law can supercede violence. Of course all law is backed by the potential for violence (and its occasional expression) but the ring of swords can be more or less pointed inwards. Right now we are still ruled by law and nominal democratic/bureaucratic procedure, and it's only along the fringes that we see the law step in to destroy people. But at the same time we have accepted both democracy and capitalism, so can we really say that this is because of the ring of swords?

>peaceful transfer of power would be ideal
Isn't this the exact difference between violent and non-violent reform, even when both are backed by the same (potential) military force? Breaking the law might become necessary at some point but it's crucial to remember that this doesn't have to imply the actual exercise of the threat of force. It's only when this is certain that resistance is necessary, and so the reactionary would have to ponder his chances of successfully resisting.

>the transcendent
Could you elaborate?

>observable principles which are not perceptible to those who cannot conceptualize beyond mere matter
Such as?

This is actually extremely interesting to me. How can you keep me posted without doxxing yourself?

If you have read Evola I doubt any elaboration I do here would be fruitful.

It's difficult to really say what could be beyond the material, because in my view the essential conceit of 'psychology scientists' is that objectivity is applicable to understanding human nature. The herd can be reduced to a few behavioral theories. One way to maybe see beyond this is to try and ponder what on earth was up with all the Christian wars in Europe? Were all these (great?) people truly so brainwashed by something so obviously false as mystical superstition that they would go to war for their (oppressive?) rulers or rebel against them? Do you feel comfortable explaining this historical sequence of affairs in terms of purely societal forces?

The ring of swords certainly can be pointed inwards. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here.

Can you say with certainty that our odds of survival, currently, as a race, would be worse were "law" to evaporate? That's a question that haunts me.

So in this conception, life began when "diversity begat diversity" in the primordial soup. Critical diversity was reached, at which point a comprehensive set of molecular tools was developed. Then the Apollonian cell wall shut down connections between one region of chemistry and another.

Onward to punctuated equilibrium, in the Cambrian explosion. Diversity begets diversity, and then mass extinction. Multicellular life springs into being and body plans are cemented, and then extinction specifies certain chemistry.

The force behind life, that literally is life, is to tame the Dionysian and the Apollonian against each other and rise in adaptability and complexity. To fall to one side or the other is to die in obsolescence as environmental signals fail to reach you, or to die in poor fitness in chaos.

Evola instinctually understood this when he wrote that the traditional man of the future will have to be more adaptable, since the ecosystem has irrevocably changed -- "Dionysian Apollonism." To reach the heart of true form, without any of the traditional trappings. That's what this effort is all about.

It's how I came to faith after years as a materialist, knowing that when times get tough and I am tested, materialism will not get me through.

Well, you might have a different concept of the transcendental from Evola's. If you don't, then I guess we disagree fundamentally on what constitutes "reality."

>Do you feel comfortable explaining this historical sequence of affairs in terms of purely societal forces?
Why wouldn't I? There have been sectarian wars since the dawn of civilization. As great as the Europeans were they were still humans and flawed. Do you see any categorical difference between Christian infighting and Islamic infighting? False or not they believed strongly in their religions to fight for them. And that's not taking into account the various other socio-cultural parameters that lead to wars. To think it's all religion in a vacuum is what I'd be uncomfortable with.

Our current laws are no more than an expression of our rulers, whether they be mob or bureaucrats or mass-media, and certainly no longer reflect any kind of principled theory as perhaps the Enlightenment (whose "more social" version it claims to represent) still did. The problem of law is its relation to the sovereign, which in our case is either absent or hidden. It's certainly true that some laws should be done away with, but what's not obvious is the point at which resistance and the testing of the force behind law is advisable. For example neo-reactionaries are perpetually tormented by this situation, since their theories require them to only resist when they can be victorious. But since 'might makes right' as well the observation that theories can somehow congeal into organizations with a unified might, it seems possible that the entire matter could be settled without blood. But ironically that could only happen if one side has overwhelming force etc. I don't think the reactionary really has a way out of this conundrum when the law is pointed towards him not being able to acquire any kind of might. What then? Where does the might come from? And so we hit the ideological/spiritual wall that he won't cross. Anyway I don't think law will ever evaporate since long before then the material conditions will become so intolerable that order will assert itself again no matter what. We have seen many catastrophes befall nations but anarchy never lasts long (unless you're in the jungle).

I'm not sure. I'll repost sections here maybe. My opsec is shitty unfortunately. Ill look into some avenues

>what on earth was up with all the Christian wars in Europe?
war is profitable (for kikes)
>Were all these (great?) people truly so brainwashed by something so obviously false as mystical superstition that they would go to war for their (oppressive?) rulers or rebel against them?
yes
>Do you feel comfortable explaining this historical sequence of affairs in terms of purely societal forces?
sure
>rome smashes kikes
>kikes hate rome
>kikes subvert rome with slave religion psyop
>kikes make goy slaves kill each other for profit
fast forward to now

>sectarian wars
> they were still humans and flawed
What I was getting is that you consider your enlightened atheistic scientific empirical rational etc perspective to be clearly superior to all the strange mysticism from the past. It was an attempt to appeal to a sense of humility in the face of such obviously powerful "superstitious" convictions. But I see that you disregard religion as more socio-cultural weirdness that arises from material conditions. I wonder what you make of your current relation to the materialistic analysis you use? Science and Truth or more societal inevitability?

pls go.

Christianity and really all abrahamic religions are the problem.

They sap man of his Promethean potential.

> Christianity is just a psyop on a civilisational level.

Jesus. People believe in some crazy shit.

Please submit your name and number. When the time comes you will be contacted, given a molotov cocktail and a smack on the ass. Go get em, tiger.

If you aren't willing or able to think harder than this as an intellectual you will only ever be cannon fodder at best.

Like Jesus

it is.
what? thats what it is, its fucking bolshevism 1.0

The thread is serious, user.
Go shitpost somewhere else.

How would they even carry that out?
> We must get 'em goys out of our promised land, thus we must create this sect we truly hate and persecute and they'll eventually become the official religion of our enemy empire and erode it from the inside, coming to a fall that will happen centuries from now. Yes *rubs hands*

How much of a retard you have to be to believe this?
What kikes tried to do back then was assassination plots. Ever heard of the sicarii? It came to be that the romans got pissed at then and destroyed the 2nd temple, scattering the kikes all over the world.
At that point, christians were suffering martyrdom, not planning to take over.