Concerning the problem of tradition

This is extremely superficial. Of course you can think whatever despite the century you're in. But when you attempt to materialize that thought in one functional system, here comes the problem. You are not a medieval knight, you're a modern bourgeois with all the implications. The statues of the Italian Reinassance weren't the same as the ancient statues of the classic era.

>There is only one possible option: to walk forwards until we transcend tradition.
if you're a little bitch in California then yeah
if you're a loving grandson in Japan then NO.

>"Do you know Dollo's Law? From his studies of the carapaces of fossil turtles, the great Belgian formulated the Law of the Irreversibility of Evolution: An organ which degenerates during evolution never reacquires its original size, and an organ which disappears never reappears; if the offspring return to a mode of life in which the vestigial organ had an important function, the organ does not return to its original state, but the organ develops a substitute." (Wolfe-Fifth Head of Cerberus)

Any tradition exists only at its specific time and place, retaining its qualities related to its historicity. We can recreate a 1:1 copy of Classical Athens and it will always be a mere copy because of the accumulated debris of history which preceded its recreation. The new Athens will only be a simulation of old Athens, it will not only lack its own autonomy but will reduce the quality of the original Athens to a reproducible thing.

Perfect post, good job user.

Because you should always cite your sources:
depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/27/jameson.html

>A storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.-- Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Philosophy of History (1939)

Attached: fredjameson.jpg (315x160, 8K)

Tradition is an attitude and perspective, not an activity nor practice. Though the traditional forms are useful for awakening the spirit of tradition, you are right to say that tradition in general is all but extinct. To restore tradition, then, is not to adhere to forms, but rather the ideas contained within those old ways. This largely means to carve out, as much as possible, a traditional lifestyle--one rooted in family and community, focused on generational order and not personal comfort. It means ignoring contemporary trends, which are only getting faster and less meaningful. You will find as you embark on this journey that you are not the only one, that there have actually been many paving the way. If you only look at modern media, of course you will only see modernity. Until you step outside the modern perspective, you will be unable to see the deep reservoir of tradition that remains, waiting to drawn upon like a forgotten well. What you desire is difficult. Why do you expect to find it in the marketplace?

>There is only one possible option: to walk forwards until we transcend tradition.

I don't like where this is going. By what? Trans-humanism? Establishing space kingdoms and terraforming Mars so we can implement some sort of democracy and holiday clubs there? Man would only feel more isolated in the vast cosmos after being removed from Earth itself etc.

I am not much fan of converting to some traditional doctrine such as Islam, but I would before entering some fucking shuttle to spread the human virus.

There is no transcending tradition in the doctrine of the Hindus, or what they call Kali-Yuga. The counter-tradition, or anti-tradition, will achieve such a degree that no turning back is possible: then a savior will appear. The Hindu Kalki riding on a white horse or Doomsday Jesus descends on Earth.

Probably not some sort of historical person, but I believe there will be a total purification, mass destruction and death. From those ashes we enter new phase of tradition, spirit and Golden Age. That is, if you believe in 4 ages or Yugas of Man.

The modern man has this myth that the Earth is some sort of prison and the sun is out to devour us: we must get out! We must conquer the solar system! To spread out! Transhumanism, solar conquest, gene editing: the true system of Antichrist. For man would not be even a human anymore after such transformations but some sort of unnatural Time Lich.

This is the epitome of cringe. When will evolafags grow up? Hinduism is satanic and gay!

What do you envision our future? Perhaps some sort of space communism/capitalism or something similar to Star Trek?

No, I'm not the poster you responded to. I've no clue what the future holds. I just think it's cringe when people parrot Evola and Guénon so intensely and I wonder if you're thinking very deeply about what you write. For example,

>to spread the human virus
>for man would not be even a human anymore after such transformations

You refer to humanity as a virus, which implies misanthropy; but then you claim that if we change humans, they would no longer be human, and you seem to imply this would be a bad thing (as they would become an "unnatural Time Lich"), which implies philanthropy (since you wouldn't change humanity even if you could). This is a contradiction of sentiment and I wouldn't be surprised if you simply change your depiction of humans depending on the argument you're making, that is, for rhetorical reasons. Humans are a virus when they seek to dominate more space, but they are untouchable in their humanity when people seek to improve the species with the tools of science. Kind of a bad look, dude!

Major problem

Nice but eventually falling

Traditions carry a lot of wisdom, but there's this one thing they point to, this single truth, that transcends the single tradition. There's a truth, a skeleton that each great "spiritual" tradition has in common.
We should embrace the effectiveness of each tradition, but this should also suggest us that all but that what they have in common is contingent.

We have to judge a tradition for its effectiveness to bring us to that truth, without forgetting that it's a path, that brings you FROM a point to another.
Guenon himself suggests islam to the western man, simply because of its similarity with the starting culture.
Therefore, if that tradition is dead, it just means it failed.

Reviving a culture is a great approach, you can learn a lot from it, but you can't think is the ultimate solution. Maybe today it could still be, but it's not going to be so forever.

Each tradition has a style, a complex view, and if we evaluate that view by how effective it is, everything but that single unique factor they have in common falls metaphysically. The traditions are infinitely wise, you always learn so much from them, but crying won't bring them back.
Like, let's be honest, do you really think they could fit? There's a way also for the twenty first century man, we just have to find it.

Think less about bringing back stuff and stay focused on your experience.

based

>metaphysical absolutes

Attached: schope.jpg (735x589, 83K)

The problem is that tradition is up against thinkers such as Adorno and that bald french prison guy. It is a bowl of oats next to a Big Mac.

Tradition used to be great, you know. Now tradition is another New Year's Eve alone and unfulfilled. I wonder what my ex is doing? She moved in with her boyfriend. Gods, I wish she felt as alone as I do. My friends, they are having fun I think. They invited me, but I made an excuse they did not believe but did accept; that is why they are my friends. My friends are okay, I know that they are deep inside just like me.

You’re in the trap and don’t even know it. Things have changed but it’s not because of Foucault or Adorno. All of history has lost its meaning, relegated to some museum of ideas and totally divorced from the context from which it was derived. It’s true that we form strong pair bonds but the idea of a permanent nuclear family was born alongside a shift to agrarian society where land and it’s development became heritable. This isn’t the only way to view the world, read more.

the true blackpill is that Tradition was invented by Modernity

Adorno? More like Aporno because I want to fuck him

Your metaphors are as disgusting as your philosophy.

Your crassness makes my mind parched

Thanks user.

First off all the following is written from a german perspektive, someone from another Tradition should consider that one proposed solution concerning tradition can not fit all.

The Idea that Tradition has gone seems obvious at first, but thats not entirely the case. If we look at Hegel a Father of modernity can largely be understood as an Invertion of the neoplatonic Philosopher Proclus, from emmanent to immanent, from an unknowable Absolute to a knowing Absolute, but retaining in this negation the fundamental structure updatet to his time. More generalized we can see in this the presence of Tradition in Modernity as its simple negation. Through a Synthesis of modernity and Tradition where the most fundemental elements of traditions are reintroduced through the immanent critique within modernity, for example adornos negative dialektik read as a reintroduction of the unknowable Absolute.
Through this possibility of a Traditionalism not against but through modernity we can create the intellectual underpinning for a new lived Tradition which reincarnates the old one through the fire of modernity. Combining the winter and spring of cultural cycles (spengler) by a cyclical reactionary revolutionary reading of modernitys heart itself.
The Consequence of this would be the creation of a new religious and philosophical, in the face of immanent destruction self reconstructing, organic Unity, manifested in a new systematic literary work. A Culture in which the totality of its History is omnipresent self recreating, appealing to itself as a platonic idea (geheimes Deutschlanf George)The closest histrocial precedent for this would be the creation of the talmud in the babylonian exile.

Tldr; Modernity has the possibility of recration of Tradition immanent in its negation of tradition.

Attached: 1567378145517.jpg (899x1156, 277K)

>perspektive
>dialektik

Learn English, dude.

We must undergo a new cultural revolution, while it is possible for an individual to lead a traditional life, it is impossible to divorce from him the modern world surrounding. The new "traditional" revolution, while it may hold the same ideals as the premodern world, will be different in that it is a natural reaction to the unnatural state of modernity, where as the premodern worlds tradition was merely the natural state of things.

Adding to this it will take a generation after the revolution for a true traditionalism to be present

What are you talking about “natural state of things”. It took millennia of force and indoctrination to get where we are. We weren’t some savages in a state of grace before the satanic mills appeared. Why is your ill defined tradition more righteous, except for its present imperceptibility?

Why should I support tradition when it only guarantees misery for me

Because it guarantees the continuity of society

So I should do it so other people can be miserable as well?

Being miserable is an illusion of the mind. Being dead is a reality.

Nice LARP, now log off the computer and go outside. Wash your penis after you come back inside

So is happiness, so are a lot of things. What do you mean by being dead is reality?

Im not saying this is gonna happen, the current cultural climate makes it seem unlikely, Im just saying it would have to happen for us to return to tradition

I wanted to write "this guy gets it" but then I expanded the image and you lost all authority in my eyes

Who is wise is never miserable. You don't need all the vanities of Modernity for reach happiness, neing happy it is only up
to you. But modernity brings death to our civilization. And that doesn't exist only in your mind, as the feeling miserable does. It is a reality. Women have no children in Europe, we are getting replaced. this is death of our culture which has been brought by late stage modernity.

You still haven’t defined this tradition or why it should be returned to. The reason I call you a LARP is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree, this is an excellent post. We need the synthesis.

Attached: original.jpg (400x275, 18K)

That law is literally not true, retard. This happens all the time. Look up transposable elements in the genetic makeup of the human liver. Commands to make proteins can lose transcription ability but the protein coding region remains intact, unless the transposable element moves again. This is similar to how this can function in society. As certain aspects of modern culture become maladaptive, assuming we maintain the instructions for certain institutions, they can be reinstated by an ascendant force.

To OP’s point, it will probably not look exactly the same, but it’s a straw man to suggest that it would have to.

Is this the God of Yea Forums. Thank you for lifting my heart

Absolute sophistry. Thanks for the laugh

But society is never reduced to its base elements. Consider the development of animals from sea to land to back to sea. A whale derives it’s flippers and fins from the evolution of walking legs and feet, not some genetic memory of a former life as a sea creature.

In that particular extreme example, sure. Look up atavism. We’re not reimagining the human organism or even morality as we know it. These are more accurately tweaks to the social system.

So you make a tweak here, a suppression there. Have you really recreated a more traditional society or slapped another coat of paint on? What exactly are you trying to recreate anyway? No one seems capable of defining what it is, other than it being essential to society and being morally good

I didnt think I had to define tradition for you retard, but I'd say the most important piece of it is the nuclear family, father earner, mother houskeeper. I feel this family model is slowly eroding (see rising single motherhood rates, declining birth rates, less women wanting to be mothers), and this erosion is having a negative effect (see pshychological comparisons between different family models, with single motherhood scoring lowest, and the traditional family scoring highest), this trend seems to only be worsening (due to a culture always trying to be "modern" which to a lot of people seems to be absolving everyone of limitations and responsibilities) and I think of the family as the base unit for a healthy society. Traditional living is an ill defined term but is useful in generalizing a life style: settle down with wife, pump her full of babies, provide for this family. Trad means alot of different things to a lot of different people, but to me this is the baseline.

>I didnt think I had to define tradition for you retard
I know trying to construct an entire moral system built to alleviate tfwnogf is very difficult for you but I'd prefer if you kept the hurtful language to a minimum.
>Traditional living is an ill defined term
And you use profanity when I ask you to define it for me, real mature Mr. Nuclear Family. Also, you are talking about a specific family model that developed in the past few centuries in Europe. Previous traditional societies had women play a central role, managing the entire household and its finances while men went to war or worked the fields.

>due to a culture always trying to be "modern" which to a lot of people seems to be absolving everyone of limitations and responsibilities
I think you are trying to use single mothers as the antithesis of the nuclear family but aren't they the greatest upholders of your traditional values? Despite losing their counterparts they still try to nurture for their children while adopting the traditional masculine role of breadwinner. These women take on the most responsible but they are not only punished with immiseration those who yearn for a traditional society despise them.

The reason why I don't take you traditionalists seriously is that you are likely roleplaying some scenario where you take revenge for the failings of your childhood rather than maturing and overcoming those early failures.

retard isnt profanity, and playing semantics gets you nowhere, and I never said women wouldnt manage dometic affairs, what else would they be doing in the house all day? Obviously they're managing the household while the men provide resources. I dont despise single mothers, although many of them made mistakes to get where they are (sleeping around, poor choice of mate) the man is equally to blame if not more since hes completely out of the picture. The woman is more a victim if anything both of her poor choices and the degeneracy of some men, but regardless of WHOs at fault, the single mother family is still bad for the development of a child, and causes lots of societal issues (career criminals, mass shooters, rapists, and serial killers are all known to mostly come from single mother homes). Other family models like the cohabiting unmarried parents, double mom, double dad, and single father yield similar results, but single mother is the most common.
also there's a lot of untrue assumptions about me, Im not gonna assume youre projecting, but its a reasonable hypothesis. This is my last time replying to you, you seem obsessed with nitpicking and its annoying.

Attached: DATA_samesexparents.jpg (579x595, 65K)

Attached: DATA_singleparenthooddbyrace.jpg (652x667, 69K)

>Have you really recreated a more traditional society or slapped another coat of paint on?
Yeah that’s the idea. I may be more honest (with myself) than most tradfags in that I don’t have some illusion about creating a utopia based on Thomas Aquinas or some such nonsense, but it seems clear to me that the ethos of consumerism and immediate gratification is insufficient in the face of greater and greater power to fulfil one’s own base desires. A society that pushes in the direction of cultural institutions and individual self-limiting will in the long run be more capable as the decades trudge forward. Basing our society on collected inter-generational wisdom is not only of greater power, but stronger justification and safety than some newfangled Nazi-esque ideology.

My views exactly, but I still kinda like nazis, even though they failed it was a noble cause, but too utopian to succeed

Totalitarianism is the only plausible option.

Nice statement worm

>Hinduism is satanic
Christuck larper detected

Do you have the link to the study the graph came from on hand?

>Gods
Hey retard, I think I figured out the problem: you're from reddit.

be retarded enough to follow sola scriptura for one

DON'T BE*
almost sounded like a pr*t

I couldn't have said better. That's why cuckservatives are stupid as fuck.
>to walk forwards until we transcend tradition.
This is the solution. Not necessarily going full LGBT and retard trans-gender, but creating our own harmonious future. A future being not tradition, but better than this post modern chaotic transitional period.

>How can you manage to bring back tradition
You don't. You start to practice traditions and some of them will emerge as collective habits and goals.

You are worthless you replaceable cog.

See? We have plenty of people easy to enslave
I think it’s the opposite, most people just adapt to change or pretend it didn’t occur

>thinks Tradition is “going back” to something that already existed and not a state of mind
Never gonna make it

Learn philosophy, mutt

>Establishing space kingdoms and terraforming Mars
Sounds great.
>so we can implement some sort of democracy
Gross.

Tradition as understood by evola or Guenon just means a primordial spiritual high-order that occurs at various points in history and will inevitably always return no matter where you are in history. This is also part of the cyclical history theory

So in their case, they believe that a form of totalitarian religion with re-shape society as the secularist dark age falls.

Nazism was just a facade. Nice outifts, nice flags, nice speeches, but it was not really different than way of life in England or america. Wage labor based society.
In a way, England and america are sympathetic, because they are not hiding their Capitalism behind a facade. The american loves his private property of the means of production, and he lives to make $$$. He eats bigmacs, drink Coca-cola, drives a big SUV, and watch Hollywood movies. He truly is in line with the Zeitgeist. He isn't lying to himself.

>Nice outifts, nice flags, nice speeches, but it was not really different than way of life in England or america. Wage labor based society.
With ways out that aren't all immoral or literal Divine Interventions.

Sounds like some New Age junk about getting in touch with the world spirit and living in contrast to The Demiurge

go fucking read and stop being a child who wants to be saved by others

>tradition
>modernity
sounds pretty spooky to me

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4903140/

You bring it back by adhering to it on an esoteric level and not expecting other to adher to it or lay down a set of exoteric laws that you enforce by force.

Its one of the larger studies done on this, it also outlines why the big "no difference" studies were poorly executed, its got ((academics)) frothing at the mouth though

RIDE THE TIGER
YOU CAN SEE HIS STRIPES BUT YOU KNOW HE’S CLEAN
OH DON’T YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN

They compared 20 same sex couples to 12,000 opposite sex and found that the smaller population had more extreme behavior compared to the larger one.

>the comparison sample comprised of 20 unweighted cases of adolescents with same-sex parents
Trying to correct earlier methodological sloppiness is laudable, but seriously, using a sample of 20 and comparing it with a sample of between 8000 and 2000? Same-sex couples aren't that common of course but in this case the analysis cannot stand.

Also, he’s comparing data from multiple studies and lumping them together, completely ignoring the individual methodologies and biases of the researchers. Extremely sloppy methodology on his own part.

I agree that the data is probably not completely accurate, but same sex parents are pretty rare, heres one with better sampling:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537
Its hard to find a good study both because academia discourages studying this and because of the low number of same sex parents, although other studies on just gay people shows theyre more likely to have a shitton of different issues, so it stands to reason they shouldnt be parents

Damn, Chesterton. I mean, I like his amusing pompous writings and fun fiction (despite the amazing arrogance) but this is straight-up idiotic. It's breathtakingly stupid.

Are you Donald Sullins? You keep linking to the same guys shitty papers. This one includes more children but again, the ratios are fucked. 200,000 children vs 500, gee I wonder which one is going to be shifted to the median and which to the poles?

The reason why this isn’t encouraged is that it’s too easy to game these studies to give you what you want.

Think about this: same sex couples can only adopt, is there a correlation between depression and being adopted children? Maybe we shouldn’t let gay couples adopt because their children are more likely to report depression which gives people like Sullins ammunition against them.

I agree again that the ratios are fucked, but its nigh impossible to find a large sampling of same sex parents. If academia were more encouraging tis would possibly be easier. Ideally a study would compare just adopted children with same sex adopted children. You ignore my point that gays are more likely to have other issues which logically would make them bad parents, maybe we shouldnt let gay people be gay

>people who struggle to understand their own identity in a society that is dominated by a simple binary where a vocal portion sees you as an abomination makes people more anxious and prone to seek out treatment
They should do a study where they ask “are you said your parents are fags?” It’s the only way to know if we’re a good society

bro gay peoples mental disorder stats dont change between countrys much, ie level of acceptance doesnt change disfunction in gay people

Ignoring the people who call gays abomination (I.e Donald Sullins) hereto is still the default. People who question their sexuality, even those who end up hetero when they mature, are more likely to be unstable. People who study philosophy shouldn’t breed, people who study math shouldn’t breed, people who do graduate work shouldn’t breed because all of them are at a higher risk of mental illness than the general population. Instead, only people still in the cave should have children.

read Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson

Thats because hetero IS the default, no matter how much we encourage gays, just because their instability is rooted in this difference doesnt mean its not their fault. Also in what world does it make sense for humans to develop with one mother and one father for millions of years, then all of a sudden switch up the dynamic and have no effect on the children? Children need a male and a female parent to develop properly, men and women are inherently different, so they can offer the child different things. Also you act like those people get laid all the time, youre describing autists, the ones who do get laid are the normal one. The main difference is that homosexuals get with other homosexuals, so their whole dating pool is full of the mentally ill.

Never said it wasn’t the default it’s just that if you don’t question anything you end up ignorant but if you are in a society that suppresses questioning things like sexuality (only a binary) you regress. I agree that children that have role models who represent the dominant modes of society grow up to be more well adjusted people, but why does it need to be a mother or father? What if a child had two fathers but is close to their aunt?

I think your proposed alternative would work for SOME people, but children naturally look to their parents more, I think that would work better than the standard same sex parent model, but would fall short for the same reasons unmarried cohabitation families fall short

Are you implying that Adorno, in his spirit, through his rejection of modernity and everything that ultimately led to modernity, was not a radical traditionalist? Because that's just terribly naive senpai

How do you reconcile an idea and its contrary?

Through the dialectical synthesis. Easy

this board is so bad

Depends what you mean by tradition. If you mean wearing stupid ancient clothes, then, no, that 's idiotic and doesn't work.
But the main aspect of tradition is national identity. Even after centuries of change a German understands Nietzsche, an American understands Franklin, a Frenchman has affinity for Baudelaire in at least one way or another. By refusing to let this die on account of global capitalism and the constant movement of peoples as scab labor, mass media reducing everything to a simple and international lowest common denominator, we preserve tradition. We do this by means of politics to prevent eroding forces, education to inculcate some degree of homogeneity in the nation and promote awareness of the past and of language, etc. The centrality of a church would help restore Christianity. Obviously there are other things. Certain culinary traditions have died out, it would be nothing but a boon to have them return. Later on would come the return of manners and moral codes etc

You really think tradition is just nationalism? Like we all just sprang up in 1800?

national identity isn't nationalism, dummy. nations preexisted the nation state.

>How can you manage to bring back tradition after two centuries of Modernity?
Just let degenerates weed themselves out of the gene pool.

Attached: leftists don't breed.jpg (1280x2096, 761K)

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

Attached: TED.jpg (1200x800, 267K)

So the creation myth developed to justify the existence of the nation state isn’t part of nationalism?

How?

Basically this. Tradition is destroyed by economic "progress".

>How can you manage to bring back tradition after two centuries of Modernity?
You can't

Attached: chesteron quote lost cause.png (1584x1292, 1.19M)

trad praxis

Attached: 102ed95a75a60816c73ca2f12e401f1c_original.jpg (1552x873, 377K)

this is so dumb, i fucking hate chesterton and all the fat cathonerds that share his quotes.

No, it is breathtakingly sensible.

Attached: gkc current year.png (1402x1222, 937K)

Must have struck a chord in you, even one you wish was not there, to affect you so intensely.

you are attaching some lost ignorance to tradition. tradition was not ignorance of the underlying forces, it was a choice to act in spite of them. science made it easy to give importance over what was underneath, but it did not fundamentally change anything.

no

What does being part of modernity itself actually mean ontologically? What does "walking forwards" mean? Why capitalize history, what does that imply? What does it mean to be a part of an idea?

Why antifa is made up of rich white bourgeois college kids instead of the working poor.

Attached: chesterton quote anarchy poor rich.png (1070x1480, 2.1M)

If you say so, m8...

the absolute state of slave morality in this cuck

Although it may seem paradoxical in its name, tradition develops. I'll draw an example from the Church. Many are calling for a return to tradition, ie. removing Novus Ordo mass and returning to the Tridentine mass. However, Catholicism has existed for 2000 years, and the Tridentine mass was only implemented like 600 years ago iirc. So that still leaves a long period in which this "tradition" hadn't yet developed.
In a similar fashion, we will need our tradition to develop within the context of a resistance and rejection of the modern.
The modern hasn't removed tradition. It has simply shunned it.

But there has been a continuity of tradition in the Church. You can establish a thread from the church fathers to the second Vatican council.

Instead of that, our tradition was finished with the Illustration and the French revolution. There is no context of resistance and rejection because everyone has succumbed to modernity, although some people still have a reactionary thought

Good post
If someone’s image is the thing that turns you off of their argument, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on. I am not particularly a fan of it either, but that doesn’t effect my opinion.

I kind of enjoy being on the perifrial of the Catholic Church.its a bit of a continuity through the ages. Even if I’m not 100% on board I think they are an indesposable reference point to go off of. Not a simple rejection or rejection of a rejection that most passing fads seem to be part and parsle too.

tradition is the encogment of man, you are literally allowing men from the past to dominate you and fuck your women. the biggest cuck ever devised.

National identity is not the same thing as nationalism

The fact remains that the Mass was very different before the Council of Trent. The idea of lay people partaking in the Eucharist more than once or twice a year is something that would have shocked some clergy of the early Middle Ages for example.

You can't really "return to tradition" (what time period are you thinking here?). Obviously things are a bit different now due to literacy, television, digital communications, and so on. The main task would seem to be to articulate a Post-Individualism that moves beyond the liberal fictions we've been living with for a few centuries now.

Yeah it basically is

I don’t like evola or Guenon much but I did fall for the meme when I read them a few years ago

Cringe

The only real political struggle , which will have any bearing on the way we live our lives in the coming age, will be between pro-machinery and anti-machinery philosophies.

Pro-machinery will essentially be a continuation of the liberal project to its most grotesque realisations - it will become synonymous with transhumanism when technological progress becomes sufficiently advanced to integrate the artificial into the biological with guaranteed success.

Anti-machinery will always a reactionary idea. It will first be mainly comprised of eco-fascists trying to live off the grid while mounting violent resistance against 'incorporationists'. This will not be a totally multilateral movement, but an idea that gains currency with many different political sub-groups. There will not be one 'traditionalism' in the same way there is one global village. Each community will have its own artistic and cultural practices which will not be totally dissimilar in the sense they will all celebrate what is natural and censure what is artificial.

Each group will see the other first in some way akin to how we in the Western world view jihadi terrorism. Once the worst of the violence cools, we shall begin to view each other as members of a different species altogether.

BOOOOORRRING boring

stupid and also boring

there is no conceivable reason a strong reactionary movement would not take advantage of technology to crush its opposition

It's even worse than that. The side of technology and Gestell is ahrimanic.

sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/ahriman
wn.rsarchive.org/RelArtic/BlackDavid/DB1981/CmpAhr_index.html

Attached: 1533282603275.jpg (500x500, 70K)

Chesterton is full of little quotes like this as if he's pointing out absurdities when he's just blatantly missing (or avoiding) the point.

>there is no conceivable reason a strong virginary movement would not take advantage of sex to crush its opposition
>there is no conceivable reason a strong pacifist movement would not take advantage of weaponry to crush its opposition
>there is no conceivable reason a strong abolitionist movement would not take advantage of slavery to crush its opposition
>>there is no conceivable reason a strong leveller movement would not take advantage of caste society to crush its opposition
It is like you plan to fight cocaine with heroin. Technology is so intrinsic to you that you don't dare refuse it. Until this happens again you will get to be a cog in the machine, again.

Now, of heroin and cocaine. Drugs like alcohol, coffee and tea are legal still, even pure caffeine, under a specific consumption culture and laws that constrain its usage. So SOME specifically vetted technology can and should be used, it is not like Traditionalists are all anprims. But some things must be anathema, banned under threat of expulsion or death, and provoke violent reprisals is neighbouring communities would like to indulge in it, the same way any sane community wants the nearby drug fiends' lair eradicated.
Some specific technology - inquieries into such fields, even - must be totally verbotten with religious zeal as antihuman and inhumane, thus anyone dabbling in them an enemy of mankind.

Like in the Butlerian Jihad in Dune they outright prohibited "thinking machines" and made possession or creations of "thinking machines" a capital offense, violently lynching for owning a calculator. Because they had had their Digital Gulag period and they didn't like it at all.

>stupid and also boring
You can say the same for almost all ideological conflicts in history - in the end, it always ends in fire and destruction of some kind.

>there is no conceivable reason a strong reactionary movement would not take advantage of technology to crush its opposition
You're right, but you miss the point which I should have articulated more clearly. People will fight for the right to live outside of technology's sphere of influence. The guardians of this society, at least when violence escalates to full heat, will have to be just as heavily armed as their enemies, but they will fight in order that others in their community will have the freedom to live as they choose, away from the all-seeing eye and in some approximation of what may be called a traditional mode of life.

As well as international diplomacy, the liberal state will have to negotiate with these autonomous regions which do not recognise their laws and the rights through which they have purchased the land that is not anymore theirs.

You cannot fight eroding forces. People have chosen. They have chosen Capitalism. You do not fight historic tendencies by wanting to go back. It's only when Capitalism will reach it's limits that they'll choose something else. But it probably won't be Tradition. Whatever that is. By the way Baudelaire was a degenerate. Junkie, womanizer, nothing to do with the traditional world.

Then say what’s wrong with that quote

bump

I never said Baudelaire was traditional. I said tradition and nationality let a Frenchman understand him.

A bawdy Frenchman is not the same as a bawdy German.

>People have chosen.
lol

The Capitalist class forced them again and again, but ultimately, the working class never used desperate means against the Capital. If they did we would have had a communist State somewhere in the world. The working class reproduce the Capital, never really wanting to abolish it.

>e working class never used desperate means against the Capital. If they did we would have had a communist State
lmfao