Julius Evola

What does Sup Forums think of Julius Evola and his Traditionalist school of thought? It seems interesting that he incorporates Hindu mysticism and draws parallels with the moral degeneration brought by the Kali Yuga and modern days. Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Conservative retard, anything that pushes people into christianity is cancer, since christcucks are active pro"refugee" scum.

I like him.

He's a disciple of René Guénon. Do you know him?

No, but do tell me more.

He didn't push people into Christianity.

You clearly haven't read anything by him which doesn't surprise me considering i can't remember the last pole I met who could read.

Bump.

bump

The essence of Western Tradition stems from Christ and his church. You can't have one without the other. From what I've read of him, he sees the cancer that is materialist nihilism, but he just tries to check it with vague eastern spiritualism and the "Aryan spirit" or whatever. That's just as damaging and blind as the beliefs of the moderns he opposed.

I agree with what you say. I also think he is very wrong on dismissing Locke and natural rights theory, as well as capitalism. He fails to see that the moral degeneration of society has been brought by tremendous state growth and the rise of democratic-egalitarian policies which sustain it.

I haven't read what he's said of capitalism, but it is a force that should be opposed. It is every bit as materialistic and godless as socialism. A true return to tradition would mean a rejection of all of these materialist philosophies.

I disagree. What we have today isn't free market capitalism, it's a social warfare-welfare State supported by expropriating property off productive citizens. The "permanent adolescent" class that we now see (feminists, transgenders, homosexuals, NEETS, etc.) is a by-product of the welfare State. Private property capitalism and egalitarian-multiculturalism are contradicting policies. Today we have the State impeding private property owners from freely discriminating against and in favor of whomever they wish.

Have you read Hans Hoppe?

finally read Revolt recently, now I'm almost done with Men Among The Ruins.

I just bought most of his other works, I find it extraordinarily fascinating.

western civilization predates Christianity by centuries

I'm talking about English/American 19th century gilded era type capitalism. It created a massive proletariat class, and only encouraged materialist, nihilist beliefs and philosophies. Socialism only came about because of capitalism. The right to property is only destroyed under capitalism.
>western civilization predates Christianity by centuries
No it didn't, the shared culture and heritage of the European peoples came about only through the Church. There was no concept of "Europe" before the Church.

And in any case, if you want to revive the "spirit" of the pagan Hellenistic world as an alternative to materialism and Christ, you can't. That way died with Christ on the Cross.

>The right to property is only destroyed under capitalism.
What? The idea of private property is only eroded and dismissed by State-worshipers and the new democratic-egalitarian sentiment that is poisoning the West. If we were to return to unrivaled laissez-faire economic policies, the welfare state (and those who live off of it) would disappear. Many of the people who are moral degenerates today would have to put their behavior back in the closet, fearing that they'd be ostracized and outcast from society. See image.

>what
Property ownership is a fundamental right. Under capitalism, property and the means of production is inevitably centralized under the control of a few individuals or corporations, leading to a the rise of a landless proletariat class (see: Victorian London and American cities). Under socialism, this centralization happens under the state.

I get where you're coming from bro, but both capitalism and socialism are modernizing, anti-traditional forces.

If you're interested in an economic theory in line with both traditional European ideals and Catholic social teaching (one and the same), you should check out
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Chesterton and Belloc are always GOAT.

>Under capitalism, property and the means of production is inevitably centralized under the control of a few individuals or corporations
I highly doubt this claim but I will look into in nonetheless.

He seems like an interesting card, I like this quote:
shows how something as pristine (potentially) as the free market can be muddied up with materialism and, as we will eventually see if we follow as we are, the opening up of borders/dissolution of cultures. It's great for the economy, but it erodes at the social structure of a people. For example, how many of you honestly know your neighbours on a first-name basis? At least in urban areas, most people just chase the corporate ladder and think of nothing else. It's the "Black Friday" system, you'd drop a conversation to chase after a deal at some store. Don't get me wrong, the free market is the path of least resistance, but these are its downfalls.
The same goes with Marxist theory, or hyper-egalitarian idealism.

I read that he died from complications of an injury he sustained during a bombing raid, the madman was just walking around like it was a normal day.
I also read that he wasn't too fond of the National Socialists. Not too sure about that. His name sounds cool, as well.

>I read that he died from complications of an injury he sustained during a bombing raid, the madman was just walking around like it was a normal day.
He was defying fate by going to a walk while the city was getting bombed.

>I read that he died from complications of an injury he sustained during a bombing raid, the madman was just walking around like it was a normal day.
He said he used to walk the streets during bombing raids to philosophize and contemplate fate or something along those lines. He was indeed an absolute mad man.

And then a shrapnel hit his spine or something and he was paralyzed from the waist down until his death.

What do you mean, he made the choice to go outside and walk. It can be said that there is, in some form, something written/recorded that contains the entirety of every atom's presence in all time and space, including the ones in Evola, but I believe that this document simply is, and that there is no being that enforces it (rather, dictates the future of it, but is only aware of how the chips will fall). There is a being that lead to the creation of all these things (I say that this deity tipped the dominoes of creation and recorded them before/during, depending on how time operates for this being, the dominoes were falling), but that's besides the point.
Or are you just using fate not in a fate v. free will context?

That's it. Seems like he was tired of living or wanted to see the afterlife.

"I thus found myself confined to hospital. Such an accident, no doubt, was not unrelated to a rule I had long chosen to follow: not to avoid, but, on the contrary, to seek dangers as a tacit way of putting fate to the test."
extract from The Path of Cinnabar

I mean, what the fucking fuck did you expect was going to happen? Fate isn't a light bulb, your life is worth more than that. We could have had another book to add from Evola, but he decided to take a leisurely stroll.
To each his own.

He was flaunting an aristocratic attitude towards death and fate.

i've got his books on order, but i'm mostly interested in Ride the Tiger.

i'm told this is his more "instructional" work, on how to live in the modern world. is this true? is his advice any good?

that's a good way to put it.

>There was no concept of "Europe" before the Church.

There was no concept of "Europe" before the 19th century, dingus.

For an example, look at the founding fathers of America's attitude toward Islam and the Ottoman Empire.

...

Yeah he used to walk around Berlin (He was researching secret cabals) whenever the allies bombed to challenge the powers that be to kill him and he took a shard of shrapnel in the back which paralysed him. Didn't die though. He was clearly still meant for something.

And he didn't like the National Socialists because they were collectivist while Evola is very individualistic. He also put out a paper where he criticised Fascism from the right (as in from a position further to the right of fascism).

American education, everyone

I mean Europe as an idea, a civilization, or a race absolutely stems from the 19th century, as does concepts of "Italy" and "Germany". I don't mean Europe as a geographical entity - which is ancient Greek.

Christian attitudes toward a "Europe" was more of a Christendom, which never included the whole of Europe. Not just pagans, but also Orthodox according to the Catholics, and so on.

please stop

see: Monsanto suing farmers for growing their seeds (which blew into their farms). Do you really believe corporations are any better than governments?

I don't like individualism, either. At least, the hedonist social catastrophe of modern individualism, the "me" mentality. Collectivism as paying taxes for the military and infrastructure, or the unification of a people and their blood under a government of men like Hitler is supreme.
Most people are too dumb to be free, Churchill said the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. To enforce a standard of behaviour, or a code of morals, upon a society that reflects the most beneficial future (no sodomy, preserve the family, respect God/nation/family/mind/body, no pre-marital sex or drug use, etc.) is the right way to go.
Here's Hoppe on it: The principled opposition of the libertarians to the Vietnam War coincided with the somewhat diffuse opposition to the war by the New Left. In addition, the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy state and the nonaggression axiom (that one shall not initiate or threaten to initiate physical force against others and their property) imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle?

Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles? Not surprisingly, then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of abnormal and perverse followers. Subsequently, the countercultural ambiance and multicultural-relativistic "tolerance" of the libertarian movement attracted even greater numbers of misfits, personal or professional failures, or plain losers. Murray Rothbard, in disgust, called them the "nihilo-libertarians" and identified them as the "modal" (typical and representative) libertarians. They fantasized of a society where everyone would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as a result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of general prosperity.
Ironically, the movement that had set out to dismantle the state and restore private property and market economics was largely appropriated, and its appearance shaped, by the mental and emotional products of the welfare state: the new class of permanent adolescents.
This intellectual combination could hardly end happily. Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modem libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights Gust as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals).

OK, pinpoint exactly where the concept of Europe started. Show your sources also.

What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social discrimination and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.

That about sums it up, for me. I like individualism when it refers to the fundamental right to defend yourself and all that (not the (((new))) human rights, like tranny rights or fag rights). You can have both, most of the hyper-individualist people are just rebels who want to be faggots to show "the system".

Evola considered conservatives as modernists, same with christianity.
His traditionalism stretches back about 12000 years.

I like his ideas of transcending by performing difficult physical and mental tasks. His personal suggestion is mountaineering, but weightlifting does it for me.

Just read ride the tiger. Diffucult read. As I understand it he regarded traditional values and the social structures that go with them as the foundation of meaning in peoples lives. Right now we are in a cycle of history where no real return to tradition is possible. "Differentiated" or enlightened men should bear existing conditions stoicly.

In regards to things like fag rights and other libertarian pet projects. They ignore that these behaviors cause negative consequences in society at large. In a society without govt enforced "tolerance". People would not allow behaviors tgat lead to family breakdown.

>having anything to do with the barbaric cult that is Hinduism
Yeah fuck him.

Christendom and Europe are the same thing.

Europe existed before Christendom. Christianity can be directly linked to universalist ideas like "equality".

I've ordered Ride the Tiger and Revolt Against the Modern World. I haven't read any of them yet, but the Amazon reviews do indicate the former is a manual on how to surpass the nihilist self-destruction materialist mentality we are faced with today. To find our spiritual balance and ascend to a esoteric plane of mentality. Something like that.

Revolt is essentially his manifesto against the Modern World and in support of the Tradition way.

The issue is applying the idea that everyone is equal before God to your everyday life. You and I are not equals because we are different, but that doesn't mean we should be saved differently.

HARE EBOLA
KRISHNA KRISHNA
KALI YUGA
HARE HARE

HARE EBOLA
ACID ACID
HASHISH HASHISH
HARE HARE

MAINSTWEEM MEDIER