Traditionalism - Perennialism

Is it ridiculous to want to live among people who are ethnically similar to you? Is it ridiculous to acknowledge that women are inferior to men? Fact is, you choose to villify that which made the West great. And now it's declining under feminism and the degeneracy of our marxist leaders

Can someone give a Geunon recommendation for someone who's been redpilled for a while but hasn't read his primary material? Thanks.

>thinking you have to be a traditionalist to propose ethno-nationalism
>thinking traditionalism is what made the west great
>thinking feminism and marxism is the cause of the problem rather than the symptom.

We all know what the (((cause))) is in this thread, kid. This isn't a marxism thread, or a liberalism thread, we know who the true enemy is. I refer you once again to Mein Kampf to challenge your views

Dugin is no great figure except in the mind of western alt-traditionalist teenagers on internet. Here in Russia we see him as our country version of Alex Jones.

Man and his Becoming is pretty good, but it's difficult.

The Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times starts out somewhat difficult because he's talking about Western metaphysical concepts and assuming you know the controversies surrounding them. For example, he talks about hyle, Aristotle's substance, and its relation to medieval "materia" and the modern concept of scientific "matter" - and in doing that, he talks about Cartesian res extensa, matter as quantifiable "extension," which is at the centre of modern controversies surrounding science's adequacy to describe the real world. He sort of assumes an audience who is familiar with this traditional philosophical set of ideas.

But once you get past that first few chapters it gets more into talking about the implications of all this. You could probably start with Evola as well.

>traditional societies of the past

if you don't think that the experiences of the most privileged members of historical societies overwhelmingly dominate the way we imagine them then you're a fucking idiot

this board has been infested by /pol/
if you mentioned mein kampf in Veeky Forums you would be rightfully mocked

>Perennialism
Trash

Mein Kampf is unreadable. Read For my Legionaries instead of being a filthy wehraboo.

Hitler was the greatest man of all time, but you've been brainwashed by liberals and don't even realize it

>implying Alex Jones isn't great
look at this pea brain

Funny, that's how I looked at him too. And that's great.

>traditionalism thread
>not a Catholic thinker in sight
>didn't even post de Maistre

Pathetic.

bad attempt at parody. It's too obvious

Eiade
Coomaraswami
Uzdavinys

I think he's a pagan or some shit. Personally I have some pagan impulses too but I never read him.

This is a communist board, user.

>Mentioning Hitler is obviously trying to be parodical
Keep sipping that jewish cool-aid, profligate.

The past was as bad if not worse. Nostalgia is mind poison, especially when towards a time one wasn't even a part of.

Do you understand what Traditionalism with a capital T is my dude? Not traditionalism of 1950's America but the esotericist school of Traditionalism which has nothing to do with bourgeois sentiments or American conservative classical liberalism.

This desu, sage and report all pagan threads in the name of our Lord

freemasons are perennialists

ur mom is a cock perennialist.

Tell me about this Hitler person? Who was he?

Catholicism is part of traditionalism, but it isn't traditionalism.
This is a good list. Eliade is extremely entry-level and writes great introductions.

>Catholicism is part of traditionalism, but it isn't traditionalism.

I would argue that the Church is a potent example for how one answers the question: how do reactionaries implement their policies?

That is to say: how does someone who is staunchly anti-modern and thoroughly against Modernity actually map out what they might do if they get into power? Because what do you do, if you come to that? And any serious traditionalist or reactionary has to reckon with that, especially in this age when the world seems ripe for reactionary thought. What the fuck do you do if you DO come into power, and CAN implement your ideas? No more impotent pining over a forgotten past. No more moping over might-have-beens. Now you have power. What do you do?

And perhaps, as a devout Catholic myself, I have too much fondness for the Church. This is unavoidable. But maybe the Church should be looked to more than it is. The Church, after all, is an institution that began in the Ancient World and survived the Medieval World, lasting until the Modern World. Now that the Modern World has pretty much ended, how do we, people in polities, move forward? I think it might not hurt to examine how the Church has moved forward in its ages, from Ancient to Medieval to Modern. I think it might be worth examining how such an old institution has remained powerfully relevant in the modern age. It might be worth examining how the Church adapted old ideas to a new time, because that's what any modern traditionalist is going to have to do--assuming he's truly interested in practical implementation of his ideas, of course.

He sounds pretty good to me. What's wrong with archetypes and high dreams, something to give fuel to the spirit? You just sound like a downer.

Maybe but Pope Francis with his blatant disregard for theology and church tradition is terrible for any traditionalist.

Pagan trash that steals content from others more competent men

>blatant disregard for theology
Wrong

>muh trahdission
Doesn't make shit true

But we now live, we are told, in the Computer Age. What is the outlook for Luddite sensibility? Will mainframes attract the same hostile attention as knitting frames once did? I really doubt it. Writers of all descriptions are stampeding to buy word processors. Machines have already become so user-friendly that even the most unreconstructed of Luddites can be charmed into laying down the old sledgehammer and stroking a few keys instead. Beyond this seems to be a growing consensus that knowledge really is power, that there is a pretty straightforward conversion between money and information, and that somehow, if the logistics can be worked out, miracles may yet be possible. If this is so, Luddites may at last have come to stand on common ground with their Snovian adversaries, the cheerful army of technocrats who were supposed to have the ''future in their bones.'' It may be only a new form of the perennial Luddite ambivalence about machines, or it may be that the deepest Luddite hope of miracle has now come to reside in the computer's ability to get the right data to those whom the data will do the most good. With the proper deployment of budget and computer time, we will cure cancer, save ourselves from nuclear extinction, grow food for everybody, detoxify the results of industrial greed gone berserk - realize all the wistful pipe dreams of our days.

THE word ''Luddite'' continues to be applied with contempt to anyone with doubts about technology, especially the nuclear kind. Luddites today are no longer faced with human factory owners and vulnerable machines. As well-known President and unintentional Luddite D. D. Eisenhower prophesied when he left office, there is now a permanent power establishment of admirals, generals and corporate CEO's, up against whom us average poor bastards are completely outclassed, although Ike didn't put it quite that way. We are all supposed to keep tranquil and allow it to go on, even though, because of the data revolution, it becomes every day less possible to fool any of the people any of the time. If our world survives, the next great challenge to watch out for will come - you heard it here first - when the curves of research and development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics all converge. Oboy. It will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the biggest of brass, let us devoutly hope, are going to be caught flat-footed.

What I wouldn’t do for a proper English translation of The Foundations of Geopolitics. My Russian is weak.

What is the traditionalist view on race relations? Can races coexist, or are they doomed to conflict?

It depends on which figure you are talking about, you have ones like Evola who are more antagonistic regarding race and who hold proto-nazi/fascist views while on the other hand you have people like Guenon who writes about how there is natural inequality between peoples and how phenomena like the caste system merely reflect this and order people according to their attributes and constitution.

In the latter view race relations could hypothetically be kept in place and at peace by a caste system where everyone knows their place and follows their natural dharma. There is a reason that mixing of the castes is listed as one of the attributes of the Kali Yuga.

>Dugin
lol fucking wut
de Benoist
LOL WUT

Dugin is a traditionalist. What are you lol wuting about, user?

no its not

As the century unfolds we'll see the legitimacy of the liberal, democratic nation-state continue to erode, add to this resource repletion and overpopulation, and the result is that the center cannot hold. The expected reaction of the west to these developments -fascism- cannot deliver on its promises of a galactic lebensraum extending forever. Only a NazBol Imperium -sacred and proletarian- can overtake civilization and develop it in a more natural, solar, traditional direction, away from the ideology of everlasting expansion common to liberal capitalism and fascism, an ideology that is not sustainable and will bring nothing but ruin.

Pope Francis is, admittedly, not always traditional, although some of his stuff is. I find "Laudato Si" to be nearly reactionary, for example. But beyond that, he's just one pope. I'm talking about the Church as an institution. It's probably the best example of how any institution or entity can be truly traditionalist. You can't turn back time, and you can't go back to the past. What you can do is maintain your traditions and employ them against changing circumstances. Apply old ideas to new things.

TLDR
Conflict is an inevitability and needs to be dealt with, but total war for darwinian supremacy is not

lmao we're at the point where I don't even know if this kind of retardation is parody or not

Who here as really achieved an understanding of metaphysics? I feel like i've achieved true gnosis / unlocked ancient and perennial truth about first principles. The world is made of both corporeal matter, and non-corporeal, perfect matter. This is the meaning of the subterranean, and on the other hand the "vertical dimension" of "heaven". Example:

>A cosmic ash tree, Yggdrasil, lies at the center of the Norse cosmos. Three roots drink the waters of the homeworlds, one in the homeworld of the gods, the Æsir, Asgard, one in the homeworld of the humans, Midgard, and one in the homeworld of the dead, Helheim.

>In the beginning, there were two regions: Muspelheim in the south, full of fire, light and heat; and Niflheim in the north, full of arctic waters, mists, and cold.[3] Between them stretched the yawning emptiness of Ginnungagap, and into it poured sparks and smoke from the south and layers of rime and glacial rivers from the north. As heat and cold met in Ginnungagap, a living jǫtunn, Ymir, appeared in the melting ice.

It's describing the origin of the universe: Corporeal matter meets Divine matter, forming this world, the "inbetween world" of change / becoming.

Neither corporeal matter ("atoms") nor perfect matter, can be percieved by the senses. Because they are not manifested.

Also: Has anyone here achieved an understanding of the meaning of a "power from above"? I'd like to become redpilled on this matter.

A higher principal, looking to the gods in order to be godly rather than the proletariat to appease them

Try reading some of actual metaphysical texts like Bhagavad-Gita, Yoga Vasistha, Upadesasahasri, Tao te Ching etc

His politics are mad, though he writes soberly about philosophical subjects. I can't imagine Alex Jones ever writing seriously about Heidegger

Last war of the world island and Neoeurasianism are basically what he wants in place, largely cover the same stuff, Dugin's Russian work is much more anti-western than his translations

bump

Why don't you "metaphysical" trad guys ever read like, idk, Aristotle or Kant

Are you kidding? Coomaraswamy and Guenon were insanely well read in Greek and scholastic philosophy at the very least.

>it's just human nature!
>it's also esoteric

>Why don't you "metaphysical" trad guys ever read like, idk, Aristotle or Kant

I am reading both Evola and Aristotle.

>whynotboth.jpeg

Shitskins are worthless.

Seconding this.

faggot plagiarist