Evola General

it's funny that your counterexample is a book that wasn't given its title by Evola himself.
why do you not like the titles tho? i never thought there was anything wrong with them.

extremely kino
is it going to be available online?

>being this retarded
Physics. You fucking nigger.

very strange reading, i didn't get this from the book at all. what evola wrote is that traditional man did not experience time as homogenious, but he experienced its moments as qualitatively different (whence the timing of rituals, festivities, etc.), as well as it having a "rythm," which i don't exactly understand, but it's not what the video says. i'm fairly certain the world of tradition was also material -- it's just that everyone was basically aryan super saiyan kangs

Lmao that figures
Most of the titles either sound too edgy for what they actually are, or tend to be somewhat misleading as to the contents. Men Among the Ruins may be another exception.

It's possibly the most straight forward introduction to Evola. Although you may miss some auxiliary details, which in-case you may want to re-read it after you've read some other works. However, such details might as well be considered unimportant.

Attached: Julius Evola Early 1940s.png (223x300, 50.24K)

So, which documentary was this?

Attached: file.png (1534x822, 2.47M)

raiplay.it/video/2022/03/Passato-e-Presente-Julius-Evola-contro-il-mondo-moderno-con-la-Profssa-Alessandra-Tarquini-e5fa0437-1f69-4f91-ba1b-94692e74725d.html

Thank you very much!

You're welcome.

based user. have you read everything there, or are you working through it still?

I'm working through them. I've read a few though, both Evola and Guenon. I had picked up Decline of the West (both volumes) so I've taken a break to read that.
Unfortunately, the way I read is I have about a dozen or so books I am slowly working through at any given moment in time.

just re-read it over the weekend
what do you wanna know my negro?

Do you know where I could find subtitles? Even if its in Italian, I can get that translated.

Attached: youtubedl.png (767x152, 9.04K)

>new print of lightning and the sun
what press?

It's a terrible copy, riddled with typos. It's from Lulu. I've been looking for a different copy.
I actually stopped reading it because of how many typos and random words are put into it. I've only made it about 2/3 of the way in.

Get the one from Counter Currents
Also nice collection, what's to the far left?

I remember reading Ride The Tiger and he shits on existentialism which was pretty ballsy at the time as it was the epitome of continental though at the time. He especially raw dogged the hell out of Sartre which probably ruffled some feathers

Isn't that what the video says as well in broad strokes? Speaking from memory, haven't watched it in a while

East and West by Guenon

Read Pagan Imperialism and Celsus side-by-side and you'll think they might be the same person

Oh I have that but mine is from the same series as the others

LOVED his book on theosophy

Incredibly boring and just a comedically verbose guide to concepts that have already been presented many times in more concise ways. I don't think I've ever read anyone as masturbatory and pretentious as Evola.

>concepts that have already been presented many times in more concise ways
Such as?

Literally the entire book, it's just a composition of concepts Evola throws together to illustrate his worldview.

So what is an example of another author presenting a concept more consisely than Evola does?

Pg. 56, Evola quoting the Tao Te Ching directly:

"When the Tao was lost, its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; and when righteousness was lost, the proprieties appeared. Now propriety is the attenuated form of filial piety and good faith, and is also the commencement of disorder."

Evola then uses this passage to give his own, more longwinded analysis. And that's what Evola is: a commentator. All the ideas in the book are already expressed in their original sources, more economically. The entire book is Evola going "see, look at this idea, now here's my interpretation of it". Just read the original sources.

nobody takes evola seriously save some /pol/ incels who lack a father figure and want to larp as strong men of the will, knightly, aristocrats of the soul etc

But what sets Evola apart from the other sources is that he ties all these concepts together, or at least tries to. That can't be said for the original sources for obvious reasons. And presenting these concepts without context, although more concise, would not help his arguments. So I really don't understand your issue.

>nobody takes evola seriously save some /pol/ incels who lack a father figure and want to larp as strong men of the will, knightly, aristocrats of the soul etc.

Attached: 1623950171447.png (212x238, 3.39K)

if you want to read about tradition you go to schuon, guénon, ananda, pallis etc. why go to the lesser?

this is the mind of an evolian that can only thinks in terms of memes and 'its da jooos!!'

It's not a football match, mr. hooligan. Who are you to decide which is the greater and the lesser? It says more about you.

well the books speak for themselves...

ananda for example always quoted plato: "why go for the lesser philosophers"

Attached: 1620171088007.jpg (230x219, 15.02K)

This one is the same publisher (Sophia Perennis), it's just from 2003 instead. Looking into it, it appears to be the first English translation version. The ISBN10 is 0900588152 if you're interested. It seems that goodreads doesn't even have an image of it. Unfortunately, this specific book has a spine issue. Other than that, its in great condition.
I like how it was like pulling teeth to get you to elaborate and your elaboration turned out to be dull and inane.
>Bro, he totally referenced Tao Te Ching
>This is my example of how he just takes ideas and elaborates on them from his own perspective
>Who is Yockey
>Who is Dugin
>Who is Serrano
>Who is Umberto Eco
>Who was the founder of Buddhist Studies
I'd understand coming in and making a criticism, but you're attempting some kind of half-assed attack.
Let me be more honest with my interpretation of you: You seem subversive. I wouldn't call you Jewish like the other guy, but likely left-leaning.
People who read Evola, not worship him like some weird god without reading his material, but actually read Evola tend to go on to guenon and Coomaraswamy. I don't know many people who look into Schuon very much and, frankly, I'm not sure why.
To put in a different way. Evola is a gateway drug into Traditionalism through a political lens.

>But what sets Evola apart from the other sources is that he ties all these concepts together, or at least tries to.
>So I really don't understand your issue.
My issue is that Evola is a waste of time. I can think for myself and nothing about Evola's commentary is actually insightful or thought provoking. If I sound biting, it's because RATM was an absolute slog that was essentially just a high vocabulary /pol/ post.

Yes they do, they all contain wisdom.
So why read Coomaraswamy, Guenon, Schuon, instead of Plato? You're wasting your time with the lesser philosophers apparently

eco was an atheist
dugin is counter initiation

i read both plato and the traditionalists but not evola who was anti-traditional

>I like how it was like pulling teeth to get you to elaborate and your elaboration turned out to be dull and inane.
Because that's what Evola is, dull and inane. My elaboration isn't going to change the nature of his material.

It depends on what your background is. If you've already read all of the important philosophers, mythology, esoteric texts or even other traditionalists, then sure he has little to offer. But somehow I doubt that's the case and you were just trigger by difficult words.

>i read both plato and the traditionalists but not evola who was anti-traditional
You didn't answer, why read the lesser ones instead of Plato? That was your reasoning for not reading Evola instead of Guenon. But now you've turned it into
>evola who was anti-traditional
It's not a football match, hooligan. You are either underage or have no idea what you're talking about.

>It's not a football match, hooligan.
i agree. it is not a matter of preference. i fully believe evola was a counter-initiation agent, anti-traditional etc

Guenon, Schuon, Coomaraswamy etc. did not believe this, although they may have had certain disagreements with Evola. So either you think you know more than these "greater philosophers", which would be very arrogant, or you're just a schizo.

>But somehow I doubt that's the case and you were just trigger by difficult words.
OK, sycophant, now move along.

from what ive seen ananda and guénon made strong reserves about revolt. i don't know about schuon

That's wrong, like I said they had some minor disagreements over topics (such as the famous squabble with Guenon over spiritual authority and temporal power - in which Evola's position was much closer to Guenon's than many like to admit). Now you can prefer one or some over the other(s), but to call Evola a counter-initiation agent when even Guenon did not consider him such in any way, just shows you either have no idea of what was meant by counter-initiation, or you have done a very careless reading of Evola.

>eco was an atheist
He claimed being agnostic as well. However, those labels have little to do with Traditionalism.
>dugin is counter initiation
There are many who oppose initiation on the grounds that those who can initiate no longer are around. Self-initiation has become popular and the idea that one does not need to initiate has, naturally, come about in popularity as well.
I'm noticing you are writing "traditionalist" rather than "Traditionalist". This can be confusing but the capitalization does have a part to play, unfortunately. If this is too difficult, we can use perennial wisdom or perennialism. But "traditionalists" are just people who want some arbitrary time period to be here, my common example are people who "want to live in the 1950's", or in the case of the common /pol/ user, the mid-1930's.
I had a feeling that my usage was going to be thrown back at Evola, which is exactly why I used it. Thank you for being easy to manipulate.

>t. physicslet

>I had a feeling that my usage was going to be thrown back at Evola, which is exactly why I used it. Thank you for being easy to manipulate.
What did you expect, some grand and elaborate criticism? Learn this: not everything needs to be elaborate. You asked for an example and I provided you one.

I hadn't asked for an example. Although, I understand the confusion.
I knew your criticism lacks substance. If it hadn't, you would have started with it.
>not everything needs to be elaborate
Yes.

>I knew your criticism lacks substance. If it hadn't,
No, it doesn't, Evola is just a commentator of well tread ideas. Make dealings with subjectivity of opinion.

>you would have started with it.
Do you have a short term memory loss? My very 1st post ITT was calling Evola boring and redundant.

nonsense, you clearly got filtered then

he believes in the Roman Tradition and calls for all Orthocucks and Protties to convert to Catholicism in the 'Conclusion' of Revolt