Ride the tiger

Isn't it that you should live selfishly in accordance with the modern hedonistic society until it all just collapses.

Revolt Against the Modern World.

No. It is that one should find their inner, absolute self, the idealised self, so that they may live in accordance with that, and thus in accordance with Tradition, so that they may ride the beast until they are ready to slit its throat when it finally slows down and dies from the weight on its back.

In essence, he believed that there was no viable political solution to The West, so we should not belabour ourselves with the effort.

It's meaningless. What is yourself? We choose how to be. Don't be what you were or think you were, and don't just give in to instinct. Pursue virtue and learn and strive to be the best person you can.

Dont listen to the other guy, read Men Among The Ruins

Don't listen to that other, other guy, read Ride the Tiger.

Read the book, you idiot. The OP is a strawman.

OP is spot on

just b yourself is THE advice to give, it's just hard to do when you're a coward and tied to social or material structures

it's easy to talk

he was spot on about Evola's interpretation of Nietzsche, but Evola was not a Nietzschean at all, you should read the rest of the chapter

underrated

stale meme from 2 weeks ago

>The traditional civilized man shall rise again and overthrow the contemporary domesticated anti empirical masses
that sounds like a traditional revolution, which is the most anti-traditional shit you could ever conceive, a revolution pretends to create a break a from which new values are generated from nothing through the strength of the individual (or of historical necessity or whatever the driver is), a humanist type of "fiat lux"

tradition in opposition to this is an unbroken chain that connects us back to a non-human creation, as soon as you posit the possibility of humans creating values, even if those values are traditional, you are in the terrain of modernity, where humans take the reign and they shape the world, once you are there there's no connecting back to tradition

Well, Evola was a revolutionary at one point, this was outright stated.

And I believe his vision was more akin to the bronze age collapse (the last great magico-religious age), i.e. tribes of warriors in communion with the Gods and loaded with limitless potential, rather than reversion to a previous form of expression.

aren't you always being yourself?

if you're not being yourself than who could you possible be being?

Evola wrote excellent stuff on Buddhism. Particularly good antidotes to Western Pop Buddhism.

Other than that he was just insane.

>hehehe but lawgikally you can't go back to tradition because that wouldn't be traditional

>Evola wrote excellent stuff on Buddhism.
evola didn't understand buddhism at all, he was a dilettante.

>Evola wrote excellent stuff on Buddhism. Particularly good antidotes to Western Pop Buddhism.
He's the only good Western source on Buddhism. Coomaraswamy is also great, and wrote in English.

it's not about going back, it's about creating traditional values in a modern way through individuals imposing their will

>reading Evola
>not just reading Nietzsche and Guenon and Blavatsky and Kuhn and Massey and Steiner and Levi and Crowley and being powerful
horrible taste OP

what a retard, how can you mix Guenon with anybody else in that list, he literally wrote a book called "Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion"

look at his beautiful elongated face and repent

>Blavatsky
>Kuhn
>Massey

no

I will never understand these posts where someone implies that reading from every perspective on a topic is bad.

OHHH DON'T YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN

Don't listen to the other guys. Go for Ride Against the Ruins.

Don't listen to the other guys... Read Introduction to Magic.

he still goes into similar concepts and i was just throwing in “esotericists” you fucking flaming faggot piece of shit. you’re right tho i should have just said Hall instead since anyone who reads Guenon is a fucking faggot like you

>Being yourself
was it all too unbearably light for you?

>stale meme
>>>/facebook/

revolt against the modern world was my most life changing read

Likewise.

spreaker.com/user/kulturkampf/kulturkampf-episode-56-revolt-against-th

A nice introduction to Revolt.

>that sounds like a traditional revolution, which is the most anti-traditional shit you could ever conceive,
Tradition is the natural state of man, therefore everything else that have been put in its place trying to replace it is either artificial or anti traditional in its own essence
Going back to a natural state isn't a revolution, it's simply a renouncement of postmodern ideals

>a revolution pretends to create a break a from which new values are generated from nothing through the strength of the individual
A natural state doesn't pretend to create nothing from nothing, and tradition is a holistic concept, the individual atomization of man in contemporary society is a consequence of anti traditional tendencies, and not the other way around

>tradition in opposition to this is an unbroken chain that connects us back to a non-human creation
Modern society didn't break tradition, just like the introduction of sedentary lifestyles didn't break us apart from our primal instincts as hunter gatherers. You can't take the concept of instinct hibernation for the idea of getting rid of all forms of primal urges

>even if those values are traditional, you are in the terrain of modernity, where humans take the reign and they shape the world
Humans have been shaping the world since the beginning of times, what you're probably ignoring is that modernity has started to shape man instead, and that's where tradition has been hibernating for the last one hundred years

>once you are there there's no connecting back to tradition
Only if you think modernity is the new definition of tradition, what is often regarded as "degeneracy"
Degeneracy has never been "unavoidable" and never will be

>aren't you always being yourself?
>if you're not being yourself than who could you possible be being?
The artificial consumerism-driven being that will never reach its own full potential as a person because he lacks a solid metaphysical identity that sets him apart from the decadence of modern society

The human inner self is inherently traditional and it urges for tradition so much to the point that when you disregard tradition it doesn't just get rid of everything tradition-related, it only fills that urge with other things, the things that are present in your environment like addiction to smarphones or even mental disorders like OCD that literally simulate small rituals at a daily basis

The man without tradition in the metaphysical sense is lost in the void, he becomes shallow, and is not himself to some extent

The man who gas been led into defining tradition as superstition is completely demoralized by contemporary ideas of anti traditionalism and didn't develop his full understanding of those concepts to the extent he could fully understand what life is really about outside of the material world (both in the economic sense and in the worldly sense), and therefore doesn't know himself in that regard and only knows himself within his "modern" borders, and is not being himself outside of that scope as well

By ignoring that you become a nihilist, you drive yourself away from your primal traditional instincts, and next thing you know you find yourself in situations like you're using drugs as if there's no tomorrow and thinking being a junkie is what "you really are" because a degenerate actor said that line while injecting heroin in a movie you recently watched, and then you waste your life in a way that could be prevented if you had classical morals instead

>inb4 postmodern people hating on this comment

>All marxists and degenerates will fear his classical greco-roman based virtues

>not knowing the greco-romans were an anti-traditional civilization that was reaponsible for laying the groundwork for the degenerated phenomena known as modernity.

Do I really need to read the entire canon for him? or can I still get a lot of it without?

The word "tradition" has a different meaning in the works of evola and guenon. All societies in the west prior to the french revolution were traditional. Your post makes no sense.

Good post

Convenient that he starts from dialectical idealism and just so happens to land in a justifcation for Facism and the return to Aristocracy and the era of history he values.

Daoism > This shit.
If you're going to go the idealism path, try to think a little.

> The artificial consumerism-driven being that will never reach its own full potential
> Implying meeting our material wants/needs doesn't give us time and breathing room to pursue higher goals
> Implying there is only one path to enlightenment
I like a lot of traditional things personally but this lacks nuance.

Why didn't you quote the whole sentence, where's also written the reason why he won't reach his full potential?
You totally missed the point. The material world is part of life, but it's not life itself. It's part of life, but there are other spheres of life that go beyond that. Buying shit is meant to support life, not leading a life so you can buy shit.
You will be that degenerate being described in the post as a consequence of leading such a life, not as a choice. No one chooses to become a degenerate, they just become degenerates because they never realized there's more to life than that, and that happens when you think there's only that to life, material comfort, if consuming shit is your life goal. Your graphic just makes that point. The problem is that people don't climb that pyramid and they think they are climbing by buying a new car when in reality they are still down there because they're not improving themselves by buying a new car, the car isn't part of anyhing in the metaphysical sense, they are letting themselves as individuals behind thinking improving material conditions means improving themselves as well, which isn't true.
Nothing wrong if you don't agree with this, you're free for defending your postmodern values just like I'm free to defend other values, but life's not just about material comfort, there's a metaphysical psrt of individual and collective life that is only legitimate in traditional societies, and that's been ignored by our contemporary ones. Actually, material comfort has become the life goal of people just recently, after the end of traditional societies. And living by that mentality is a sign of a society that doesn't live by tradition.

What I'm saying is that while I personally agree there is more to life than just material gains, you need to take a step back for a moment and look at society pre & post prosperity.

Was there more spiritual growth in the struggle of subsistence farming, or was there more spiritual growth when people could afford to survive while being able to become artists, scientistics, spiritualists, to travel the world, observe nature etc. Is Mozart better for the soul than jim the potato peasant? A society where everyone has the opportunity to pursue these things directly/indirectly or one where the vast majority on get spiritual growth that is forced on them indirectly while only an aristocracy can ponder these higher meanings outside of local religion.

Can we really say or are both possible/viable/valuable pathways to growing spiritually? I don't like being boxed in choice wise and I don't agree that there is only one way, because the growth comes from within, whether that be through struggle or pursuit or whatever other ways people can come up with for their lives.

The twat in the OP conveniently lands in a conclusion that fulfills his worldy biases of traditionalism, violence and aristocracy.

>Was there more spiritual growth in the struggle of subsistence farming, or was there more spiritual growth when people could afford to survive while being able to become artists, scientistics, spiritualists, to travel the world, observe nature etc.
There was more spiritual growth when traditional values were considered more important than the material ones, regardless of which era we're talking about. The drive that had led those people to search for great things wasn't their desire to buy a Ferrari, it was their desire to appease their higher beings in their local metaphysical traditions (all traditional art), and their search for the priceless, the things that have value beyond the material world

>Mozart better for the soul than jim the potato peasant? A society where everyone has the opportunity to pursue these things directly/indirectly or one where the vast majority on get spiritual growth that is forced on them indirectly while only an aristocracy can ponder these higher meanings outside of local religion.
The point isn't the material conditions, it's the substitution of traditional for the material. The traditional doesn't go away, it tries to shape itself within the material when faced with his negligence and that leads people to a life without virtue, including decadence in arts and human expression.

>Can we really say or are both possible/viable/valuable pathways to growing spiritually? don't like being boxed in choice wise and I don't agree that there is only one way, because the growth comes from within, whether that be through struggle or pursuit or whatever other ways people can come up with for their lives.
There's only one way of growing spiritually, and it's by caring about the spiritual. There's also only one way of growing materially (if you call that your growth, because these things that are supposed to grow are not part of you metaphysically), and its by caring about the material.
What you're trying to imply is that it is possible to grow spiritually by neglecting the spiritual and just caring about the material, and vice versa. It is utter nonsense to be honest.

>The twat in the OP conveniently lands in a conclusion that fulfills his worldy biases of traditionalism, violence and aristocracy.
Not sure what you really mean, but it sure hasn't anything to do with consumerism either

>stale meme from 2 weeks ago
what, Nael's Tiger epic? How new are you?

>It's meaningless. What is yourself? We choose how to be. Don't be what you were or think you were, and don't just give in to instinct. Pursue virtue and learn and strive to be the best person you can.
What is virtue is what is true for a person, what their self is.

People may choose how to be in a sense, but they most often they choose to relinquish control. Calling what follows as a choice is facile.

So let me ask then to clarify, are you saying the only choice is to subsitute the material environment for the traditional or just to pursue thoose values?

> What you're trying to imply is that it is possible to grow spiritually by neglecting the spiritual and just caring about the material, and vice versa.
What I'm trying to say is rather simple, that you can more freely pursue the spiritual if you have more time to devote to the spiritual, unless for some reason the only way to grow spiritually would be through continuous material suffering, like the times before material prosperity. I'm not so sure it's that easy if you are saying this, to declare only one way of spiritually growing, hell I'm not so sure (as I've been eluding to) that you can't have indirect spiritual growth through your experiences even if you aren't conciously seeking it or fully comprehend it on a logical level.

My conclusion is why not both? Why can't we focus part of our lives or even most of it on the material, how can we say what is true growth, how can we say what the higher purpose actually is beyond just simply living and going down our individual path in life in a vast spectrum of possibilities.

>are you saying the only choice is to subsitute the material environment for the traditional or just to pursue thoose values?
I am saying that your material urges have nothing to do with who you are at a metaphysical level, they have to do with other parts of your life that aren't supposed to replace your metaphysical identity.
The idea that absolute freedom can take you to all sorts of outcomes is true only if you choosebto take paths that will lead you to achieve what you want, both in terms of spiritual or material wealth growth.
Doing things that would have the exact opposite effect than that, like misunderstanding the material life for the metaphysical life, won't lead you anywhere apart from degeneracy.
It's not up to me to say if your affirmation is true or not, but those are the basic axioms for that situation. If the material world is your religious and spiritual domain, then obviously this won't make any sense for you. The problem is that having the material world as your tradition is a bad thing, because you mix the worldly elements of one with the metaphysical elements of other that were supposed to be holy and beyond the material limits of men. So that causes you frustration and eventually makes you a degenerate, because you start living a life where there's no sacred ground.

>What I'm trying to say is rather simple, that you can more freely pursue the spiritual if you have more time to devote to the spiritual, unless for some reason the only way to grow spiritually would be through continuous material suffering, like the times before material prosperity.
The problem isn't material prosperity as I have already said, the problem it's making of material prosperity your only purpose in life. Tradition concerns the things beyond material prosperity. People live today in a non traditional society, so even though they have a lot of time in their hands, once material prosperity is at hand to everyone easily, they are still miserable because they make of that their tradition.

>I'm not so sure it's that easy if you are saying this, to declare only one way of spiritually growing, hell I'm not so sure (as I've been eluding to) that you can't have indirect spiritual growth through [...]
Having material experiences doesn't mean you have material stability, or material growth; same thing happens in the metaphysical sense, having a random experience doesn't mean that you're metaphysically stable, or that you fully understand who you are at a metaphysical level. Unless you start dedicating part of your time to that, you won't understand what that means, just like you won't understand anything about the material world if you don't spend time trying to understand it.
This argument for indirect experiences is something particularly linked to postmodern thought. If you want something, you go for it, you don't start searching for things that will cover that as a minor issue

Underrated

I'm the one you replied to

It's the best advice because it gives birth to an imperative to create yourself, and everything that entails

Get a load of this cagelet

You do know the "globalists" think they're the new Greco-Romans and republicans are barbarians right?

>You do know the "globalists" think they're the new Greco-Romans and republicans are barbarians right?
What do you mean by "republicans", are you trying to label traditionalism within the "left vs right" dichotomy?
There's no such thing in terms of tradition, both these notions are posterior to the essence of traditional societies and that's why in the 20th century traditionalism has been described as "the third way". It opposes both capitalism and communism as ideologies of economic systems simply because these simplistic notions of societies that came along with modernity are posterior to it and put the material aspects of society above the spiritual drive of a nation.
The problem with how modern society deals with tradition today is that fascist regimes used tradition as an excuse for their national-imperial aspirations at that time, and that erroneously associated the notion of tradition with that particular era in western history. But if we consider all other civilizations, all of them were traditional in essence, from the east to the west.
Globalists will rule over the domesticated man, of course, they reign over the consumerist world that's being held as the ultimate essence of life by those men.
But once they revolt against the modern world, the globalists are going to fear them, as they always feared everytime the people got angry by how they have been manipulated into their own destruction by those that have ruled over them.
It's just a matter of time. Modern society had already passed its peak, people are already tired of "the void". Tradition soon will be on the rise.

>agrarian faggot thinks he can beat an industrial society

lel

>hur durrr tradition is about doing away with all technological advancement, look at me being smart, my simplistic definition of a concept that had had dozens of books written about by evola and guenon is the coolest
Fuck off peasant minded illiterate prick

DNA is traditional.

Ride The Tiger is the most pretentious self-help book ever written... and it's great

the guy you're talking to is 12 or retarded but you're missing something important

material culture succeeds because rational production can be easily enhanced, identifying and properly compensating those that contribute most

traditional societies have a habit of turning people talmudic/chinese. corrupt, arguing over inane bullshit legal definitions, murderous, etc.

traditional culture doesnt give people the purpose you think it does. it is more akin to being ruled by the pharisees, stomping on your face, forever.

the problem ith materialism is it hasnt gone further: letting people obsessed commit genetic suicide in their adulation to televiason/media and dedication to the system, lettingt hem be supplanted by those bearing human values

currently and in a tradcon revival, tradition is simply going to let comic book nerds outbreed real humans

if you'd like to keep tradition you are going to get the least good of both systems

>material culture succeeds because rational production can be easily enhanced, identifying and properly compensating those that contribute most
The means of production in a continent like europe have been efficient enough for them to work efficiently well, even in the soviet union where the final products of production were divided evenly among the population.
You can see that they managed to remain traditional and returned to their own national essence of tradition in all post soviet nations after the fall of the regime, eveb if religion was outlawed during the soviet times, and that's because their tradition didn't mix with their general behavior toward their consumerist drive.
In the west, on the other hand, this isn't a reality, even if the the means of production were similar abd what only changed was how who was getting what from them.

>traditional societies have a habit of turning people talmudic/chinese. corrupt, arguing over inane bullshit legal definitions, murderous, etc.
Was the victorian era like that in its essence? England after the civil war? Spain during the age of discovery?
Maybe in the east that could happen because of different cultures and different traditions being bred fromvthst as a consequence, but that's not the immediate outcome of a traditional society. The west was built by traditional ideals, it has been traditional for a longer time than it has been liberal. And it became corrupt only when it lost that essence.

>traditional culture doesnt give people the purpose you think it does. it is more akin to being ruled by the pharisees, stomping on your face, forever.
Then you're not talking about tradition as an essence in a society, you're talking about particular cultures within a specific traditional framework. It's like blaming communists for failing incsome regard compared to liberal nations judging the two systems as equal just because they put the economy first instead of the traditional spirit of the nation. For you to get such bad results then the way how they use tradition must be wrong.

>the problem ith materialism is it hasnt gone further: letting people obsessed commit genetic suicide in their adulation to televiason/media and dedication to the system, lettingt hem be supplanted by those bearing human values
That's only caused in non traditional societies, it's a direct consequence

>currently and in a tradcon revival, tradition is simply going to let comic book nerds outbreed real humans
Yeah, commic book nerds have been doing that since ancient greece, they even conquered the persian empire so they wouldn't lose their traditions and be ruled by a foreign civilization, so I say let them do their own thing anyway

>if you'd like to keep tradition you are going to get the least good of both systems
Are you chinese or something? You don't seem to get what I meant fron a western historical perspective

This guy gets it. Even if Evola didn't write all of it, it is one of his greatest works alongside The Hermetic Tradition.

This, /reconquista/ now.

rome is the center of traditional euro society. they are roughly as corrupt as the chinese

the strong advantage of northern europe is that they'd essentially been barbarians until very recently. they are highly intelligent but not subject to the bad genetic incentives of late stage monarchies

china had 3k years for things to get bad. by the victorian era england had 500, maybe

>are you chinese
no but I have a broader perspective than you. institutional decay is real because no institution (tradition is an institution) is permanent. they are temporarily negotiated nash, and break imediately if the conditions that created them change. you sound young nd naive

Evola scared the shit out of Mussolini, would you?

GOTTA GET AWAAY

Sheogorath.
elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Mantling

>rome is the center of traditional euro society. they are roughly as corrupt as the chinese
Rome isn't the center, rome just had formalized administrative elements and has ruled the mediterranean for more than 600 years, what no other empire had done historically. Just because all nations in the world had inherited some of its administrative elements without any exception that doesn't mean they make sacrifices to jupiter. But rome being a traditional nation is a direct consequence of world's development.

>the strong advantage of northern europe is that they'd essentially been barbarians until very recently. they are highly intelligent but not subject to the bad genetic incentives of late stage monarchies
This is complete bullshit. All pagan nations were traditional, they worshipped gods, had their own rituals, and their own metaphysical tradition. They're no exception and you don't know what you're talking about.

>china had 3k years for things to get bad. by the victorian era england had 500, maybe
So the pre roman period wasn't traditional? The traditional elements in western societies didn't start with rome, they are more ancient. They are an inheritance from the proto indo european peoples, that's why the roman gods, the greek gods, and the nordic god are all the same with different names (what completely proves you're not even just uncultured and historically illiterate, but also dumb and pretentious). Go read a history book.

>are you chinese
>no but I have a broader perspective than you. institutional decay is real because no institution (tradition is an institution) is permanent. they are temporarily negotiated nash, and break imediately if the conditions that created them change. you sound young nd naive
You have no historical perspective, you have opinions that don't match with the matter being discussed.

I'm not going to suggest how stupid you are once again, but I must suggest that you read the author before making comments, by doing that you're not only going to understand what he talks about but also the reasons why he thinks what he stands for is reasonable.

Sometimes I think this board is better than others because it is expected that people should read the books being discussed first before making statements, but it seems that's not always the case.
Nothing wrong with you having your own opinions based on your own personal values and all of that (once I'm not convinced you're a western person), but that's not how you debate a thesis of a non fiction author, you're expected to do that differently.

So it'll be like the Nazis, who got their shit kicked in.

What if by being hedonistic I'm being myself?

GET AWAY

Did he ride the tiger himself?