I've searched for this literally everywhere

>most
More. Kek

jordan peterson

Name a relevant western esotericist. I'll wait.

>inb4 guénon is a pseud
Pessoa. But I do get your point.

Only you memers give him any credit.
In Italy nobody mentions Evola, and when they do it's just because of how controversial his figure was.

My philosophy teacher in liceo classico was rumored to be a evola scholar
Weird guy, once we broke into his house at night and pissed into his garden.

>you memers
I rarely browse /pol/. I guess the name of the book would suggest so, but I'm much more interested in metaphysics and esotericism. I'm asking for his book on race because it's one of his few that I haven't read yet.

There is a translation project on 4 of Evola's books, and I believe one of them is Myth of the Blood, which deals with race.

Crowley was both more recognized and influential. Gurdjieff was better too but I don't know if you can call him western.

link?

>arktos.com/2017/10/12/fundraiser-julius-evola-and-the-rebirth-of-radical-traditionalism/
The kickstarter and the gofundme have been flagged, but The Recognitions and The Bow and the Club are up on Amazon.

The definition of exotericist. Try again.

Peterson is worse than exoteric religion. The shit he teaches is what Guenon calls a "fissure in the Great Wall."

thanks, sounds great, i'm planning to read everything by Evola at some point, only read some of his books on different traditions so far, though i speak spanish so i might as well learn italian at some point, as they are pretty much the same language

That's probably what anglos and east europeans must think as well.
I work for a hotel in Italy and I've been often thanked with a "Gracias" to which I answer quite amused with "De nada"'.

bohme, fludd, agrippa, eckart, bruno, blavatsky, steiner, mathers, crowley, waite, hall, spare, hermes, zosimo, paracelsus, bardon there’s a lot more. i also guarantee this book is just theosophical racialism adapted to nordicist thought

He said esotericist, not occultist.

Are the French translations seriously not in print?
All evolaboos will eventually learn Italian I guess.

Esotericism is just academia’s clean way of saying occultist you fucking milquetoast faggot, is this why evola fags don’t actually read any occultist or esotericism works from before the late 19th century? is this why you all just repeat stupid shit from his books but don’t ever cite the primary texts? you realize all vedantists in esoteric schools are occultists as are all esoteric hermeticists, gnostics and christians? You can’t have esoteric knowledge without occult practice

Occult=Hidden Wisdom
Esotericism=Uncommon knowledge

they necessitate one another. no one who isn’t trying to get published in normalfag circles would deny that they are the same thing. What legitimacy could he even have had if he didn’t study occultism? Gurus have siddhis, rishis have siddhis, yoga is an occult practice, ritual sacrifice is an occult practice (and he basis for the vedas), Atiyoga and Dzogchen are occultism, Hermeticism is entirely occult, gnosticism necessitates theurgy, yoga and meditating on angelic hierarchies, metaphysical forms. What the fuck are you doing?

I would say that even if he isn't important now, he was a very important intellectual figure in the early rise of fascism, and as a foil to Guenon in the traditionalist school. He's worth a read for the historical context if nothing else.

also funded by right wing deep state intelligence circles was associated closely with London Banking cliques, Guenon probably with Jesuits

Is that you, Blavatsky shill?

you know for many Traditionalists there's no such thing as personal initiation like there is for the most types modern occultists? so you either attach yourself to a serious unbroken traditional chain of initiation or you are just larping at home

this doesn't apply to Evola though, his thoughts about personal initiation seemed to fluctuate depending if it was some of his more optimistic or pessimistic books

go read the wiki page on esotericism you fucking clown
>no such thing as personal initiation
yes modern vedantists will initiate you and teach you occultism
the rest of your statement contradicts itself and there is no living tradition for most schools, further still gnosticism and hermeticism died. you could learn kabbalah from a living lineage but you’re an anti-Semite, also kaballah is occultism explicitly

>the rest of your statement contradicts itself and there is no living tradition for most schools
how is that a contradiction? that just means that there is no true initiation for most schools

that's not my opinion though, i'm not initiated so i am not claiming anything. i just do meme meditation and i'll see where it takes me, but i have no special expectations, time will tell

Nice satanic quads. The differing views on initiation is also why Evola was kicked out of the Traditionalist School, and not because of his flirting with fascism and National Socialism.

Theosophy
Is
A
Pseudo-
Religion

it contradicts itself because Evola wasn’t initiated and he was a traditionalist

here’s my argument:

esotericism and occultism are basically the same, Vedanta by itself is esoteric but its implications are Occult which is why its taught that Rishis and Sages have occult properties, this isn’t disputable even a little

traditionalism sometimes deals with esotericism but tries to run away from occultism because it is not compatible with most exoteric religion, it scares the flock and doesn’t make for good preaching, the goal of traditionalism is socio-cultural, not spiritual, they don’t care at all about spirit its just LARPing (you were projecting when you said that word)

Evola was ostracized because he was actually interested in the Occult and Esotericism, not so much traditionalism which is just restoring the aristocracy and the church

Most religious traditions do not have initative circles, the Jesuits don’t teach anything beyond the grosses occult practices and if you did theurgy today they would ban you, and this is not historically consistent, since Christian mystics existed who were deeply involved with occult practice and esoteric wisdom

Vedanta today is extremely sanitized you will not be taught anything other than the most peurile, base exoteric philosophy (not real esotericism)

Academics do not care even a little about the occult aspects or esoteric wisdom of Gnosticism and Hermeticism beyond saying, again, the most simping things about its exoteric implications for a practitioner. repeat for daoism and alchemy

You people are more interested in the political and social implications of “esotericism” which for you is the exoteric aspect of the occult, just the existence of hidden knowledge, but no one will even say what it is (in fact they’ll just restate metaphysical ideals which anyone reading those books could discern), so the point is to just give a mystique to priests and rulers

actual occultism which is real esotericism is panned by christfaggots and traditionalists because you cannot sell it to the masses and it discourages trusting people blindly who cannot compete with you in power or wisdom

that’s my argument, i don’t think any of you are thoughtful enough to refute it without being dishonest

im not interested in religion at all

>restoring the aristocracy and the church
It's more likely the French trads would restore the Ummah.

i hate you idiots so fucking much, such disappointing midwits

you still said nothing about how direct access is possible, your post amounts to ranting about "the man" keeping you down basically, so mainstream hippism with an edge i guess

>doesn’t address how direct access is possible
all humans, especially with good breeding, white-jewish-east asian genetics have opportunity for gnosis, would require rare brain chemisty and/or productive personal study. if people can have sudden enlightenment as in Hindu in Buddhist culture and can see heaven or angels in dreams then its possible.

The rest were arguments addressing each part of the tradfag evola position on this board:

you don’t care at all about esotericism or occultism

you ostracize evola because he did

there are no legitimate initiatory schools left

jesuits taught their hierarchy christian mysticism and many bishops, cardinals, popes and priests did quaballah and understood meditation before the reformation and inquisition made that dangerous politically

all esotericist scholars see occultism as a synonym for esotericism

the tradfags are basically just theocrat-aristocrat shills and aren’t even as honest as evola thus they have no interest in esotericism

all vedanta and yoga leads to occult property and knowledge

hermeticism and gnosticism which are definitive esoteric traditions, rely heavily on occult practices: astrology, yoga, meditation, theurgy and alchemy

alchemy was an occult esoteric school built on christian and arab mysticism

kabbala is esoteric by definition and also highly intertwined with occult practice

thus you are all full of shit, you’re not even worth dealing with.

i never said i was fighting “the man” i said exactly what is happening, which is that you all want people to be Catholic or Muslim, to have Lords, and to oppose degeneracy. You do not care in the least about the Spirit, one of you called it “meme” meditation. i couldn’t imagine insulting ancient wisdom like that unless i did not take my own personal study seriously

you do not take what you say seriously, its just a gambit to sell traditional religion, but you call metaphysics, which is the philosophical side of religion, esotericism, that’s not esotericism by itself its just theology. the esoteric aspects are actually working with the metaphysical ideals, communing with them, letting them reveal themselves to you, and seeing how they move reality and making use of them. Hence esoteric occult practice. One can do this if you are not a dumb nigger, bad blood peasant, secular bug or illiterate.

I would assume Evola realized this and hence was kicke out because he got tired of sucking off exoteric cattle wisdom which isn’t interesting for people with over 120 iq

Will you calm down if I agree that esotericism and the occult are related? At the moment you're ranting about /pol/acks that might not even be ITT, otherwise your posts are interesting.

writing extensively, being anal about logic is not being excitable. yes, we agree and im sure most people in this thread are /pol/acks but that’s not even an issue, the anti-Semitism bothers me, but i don’t subscribe to political dogma.

i don't think you have to be an anti-semite to appreciate Evola really, or buy into his most crazy indoeuropean stuff

>speaks pidgin

I don't think you have read much or even anything of the main traditionalist authors, your arguments are either about thing they themselves said or about things that are obviously on different "levels" so to speak (and also they explained).

>I don't think you have read much or even anything of the main traditionalist authors, your arguments are either about thing they themselves said or about things that are obviously on different "levels" so to speak (and also they explained)
My argument was about esotericism and occultism being the same thing essentially, and that academia does not distinguish them. I also argued that Evola was not the most influential esotericist, that would probably be a combination of Jacob Boehme, Robert Fludd, Paracelsus, Hermes, John Dee and Bruno. Then I explicated why it is that traditionalists are not esotericists and why esotericism and traditionalism often conflict. Finally, I was trying to show that ultimately an intelligent highly sensitive soul like Evola, would inevitably have to break with traditionalists as they would always fetter his mind with exoteric crap he could not in good faith believe or hold to. Hence Guenon abandons Catholicism for Sufism, esoteric school of Islam, and Evola gets abandoned by Catholics and Fascists for being into self-study and Eastern Wisdom.

Additionally, I was explaining that not only is self-initiation in theory possible, but its very likely that its the only way to deal with esotericism without resorting to etic academic study which is sterile and soulless. If you would like to challenge what I said about traditionalists being basically shills for aristocracy and theocracy and that they aren't hostile to esotericism and that there hostility did not alienate Evola please post excerpts or give me your understanding. Most of my gripes with you people is low level of primary source research you do, the unfamiliarity with the schools themselves, the constant deference to Evola and the generalized tradfag statements you run your logic off of. If you were more rigorous, well read, impassioned or just competent I would be more respectful. Disrespecting pretenders or half-wits is not poor form in any respect.
No, but most tradfags as a matter of course are rabid religious or biological anti-Semites. Not all of them, just most of them

>western esotericism
>relevant

imagine actually caring about this horseshit lmao

so is the only esotericism where you don't have to self-initiate kabbalah? as in jewish guys with beards and black hats?

No I don't know where you got that from I didn't even mention Kabbalah once in that reply, I said that Kabbalah is automatically occult esotericism. You could self-initiate with Vedanta or Gnosticism or Daoism, but you'll need to test yourself against masters from the ancient world, are you like them? Or are you parrotting them? Do you see what they see? Do you talk with the understanding they have or are you LARPing? If you can do that with rigor, and a kind of violent honesty with yourself, and you are willing to read until your eyes bleed and to meditate for hours for months on end, to write constantly to interweave your understanding with your worldview then you could do it with anything. You could initiate into the Greek mysteries, Roscrucianism, you don't even need to attach to a school. But its not legitimate if its a joke, if you just take acid or have one experience and then start parroting other people its folly.

i asked that because you said elsewhere
>the rest of your statement contradicts itself and there is no living tradition for most schools, further still gnosticism and hermeticism died. you could learn kabbalah from a living lineage but you’re an anti-Semite, also kaballah is occultism explicitly
i understand that you can self-initiate, i was asking where one WOULDN'T have to.

Oh, yeah Kabbalah is probably the only living lineage where you could just be initiated, you could also go to Tibet. sorry

Esoteric - specifically refers to knowledge and teachings that are shielded from outsiders and not widely disseminated, i.e. revealed only to the initiated few. In the context of religion esotericism is often found within sects of a religion that teach that there is a higher and more metaphysical or mystical teaching then the outward form of the religion or that the outward form has a double metaphysical meaning underlying it. Esoteric groups and teachings are not always but have been and can be justifiably considered orthodox and a valid part of that religion. A classic example of western esotericism are the Greco-Roman mystery cults

Occult - knowledge of the hidden (hidden not by secrecy as with the esoteric by hidden by virtue of it being paranormal/supernatural) , often this involves the paranormal or 'magic', or in religious contexts the supposed secret hidden aspects of a religion. In the pre-modern west occultism would have mostly been found in the form of folk-healers, witches and other remnants of pre-Christian Europe. With the industrial revolution, colonialism, global travel etc the exposure to exotic lands led to many larpy occult groups forming in 18th-20th century Europe that were often a bastardized hodgepodge of satanism, Kabbalah, Masonry, Egyptian religion and Hinduism/Buddhism among others things. These were more often than not just eccentric social clubs for the rich and a way for manipulating individuals to acquire money/sex/influence. A classic example of this is Theosophy.

Some occult groups can be considered esoteric if they actually only reveal their teachings to initiates in secret but those groups should not be confused with esoteric religious sects teaching a higher metaphysical aspect of a religion that isn't strictly heterodox, i.e. Sufis or some strains of Tantric Buddhism/ Hinduism.

The term esoteric is often wrongly used to describe obscure and idiosyncratic thinkers who openly taught and wrote about unusual religous/philosophical ideas. People who go around spreading those sorts of ideas are by definition not esoteric.

I understand what the user was saying in that Evola wasn't really into those larpy occult groups and mostly focused on writing about perennial and for the most part orthodox religious doctrine. With that being said, most of the stuff Evola wrote about was not actually esoteric by virtue of it not being secret in the first place and even if it were Evola would certainly not be esoteric for openly publishing a book on it.

Due to his involvment in the Ur group and writings about Magic, Alchemy and other traditionally occult topics I would say Evola is actually way more occult than esoteric but with the qualification that he should not be considered a part of western occultism and was basically just a Traditionalist in the same vein as Guenon who also sometimes wrote on the occult.

>sperging out over definitions

Attached: i8e06f8vjpa01.jpg (816x640, 84K)

Esoteric traditions of the religious kind always fall under occult practices, this semantic sophistry doesn't hold when examining each and every time of esotericism that tradfags like to LARP as if they're a part of: Eleusian Mysteries are both Occult and Esoteric, its not a religion in the sense that any tribesman or Greek citizen would have understood it at all, you go through magical rites, drink intoxicating substances to experience visions, make contact with the Orphic god(s). Gnosticism is an esoteric tradition that is occult, Gnostics meditated, induced manic/schizophrenic states, did alchemy, qaballa, divination, astrology, spoke in tongues etc these are all occult rites and magical practices, again both categories are covered. Vedanta and Tantra are by definition occult, a Yogi and a Sage are alchemically changing the state of their soul, a magical act that is by definition supernatural or mystical. Masonic rites are esoteric and occult, the initiate is reenacting Egyptian spiritual rites that only priests and kings were permitted to and they are supposed to have occult properties that causes metamorphosis. Zen interviews, Buddhists Jhanas are occult in nature, a spiritual power is transmitted or attained to, not something that the masses attain nor something they will ever learn about and it is magical in nature.

I think you're, just as the other less informed user was, going out of your way to obscure the occult aspects to any "legitimate" esoteric teaching.

>I understand what the user was saying in that Evola wasn't really into those larpy occult groups and mostly focused on writing about perennial and for the most part orthodox religious doctrine
>With that being said, most of the stuff Evola wrote about was not actually esoteric by virtue of it not being secret in the first place and even if it were Evola would certainly not be esoteric for openly publishing a book on it
All things revealed in the age of Horus user.

>Due to his involvment in the Ur group and writings about Magic, Alchemy and other traditionally occult topics I would say Evola is actually way more occult than esoteric but with the qualification that he should not be considered a part of western occultism and was basically just a Traditionalist in the same vein as Guenon who also sometimes wrote on the occult.
I think you're wasting both of our time here if you can't even make a cogent point and didn't think about it for longer than 5 seconds before typing this

The problem I find with lumping all of the occult in the definition of esoterism is, it gives legitimacy to modern practices like Theosophy, Satanism, Wicca, and New Ageism, which is absurd.

Guenon or Evola?

It seems I am part of occult without subscribing to esoteric tradition. Best of both wolds.

>/r/books

>make stupid joke
>occultard takes you seriously

I initiated my self, and once I did it felt like I was always supposed to do that.
Feels like my life before hand was just a vague sense of life I have now.

If anyone talkd about the occult and esoteric seriously, and has not gone through pyschosis is a larp

>tfw this was copied and pasted from a post that was made a month ago but it was so fitting to the thread that it wasn't really even necessary for that user to change it or say it was copypasta

>Vedanta and Tantra are by definition occult, a Yogi and a Sage are alchemically changing the state of their soul, a magical act that is by definition supernatural or mystical.

First off they are not doing so 'alchemically', which is a western conception that has no use in describing those things, second they are not 'changing' their soul but according to the sect are either waking up to the reality of the true nature of it or are just becoming more devoted and closer to god.

This is not considered supernatural or magical in the Hindu tradition, it is seen as been perfectly in accordance with Vedic metaphysics which forms and permeates the prevailing understanding of reality in Hindu culture.

There is nothing occult about it at all. You seem to be mistakenly taking western views of occultism and ascribing it to non-western cultures. You seem to think that anything non-materialist is by definition occult. The Hindus don't see Vedanta as magic or supernatural at all but rather more like a sacred science that is in perfect harmony with reality and the Hindu religious tradition. 'Magic' or 'Supernatural' implies something beyond everyday normal understanding of reality which the Vedanta and Yoga aren't according to the Hindu view.

An example of the same error you are making would be a Hindu saying that Christian belief in salvation by Jesus is western 'occultism' because it involves something beyond ordinary day-to-day materialist matters, it's just fundamentally an incorrect understanding.

I mean, there's a difference between having your average person recognise mystical traditions and then actually engaging in those mystical traditions.

Your local farmer from Uttar Pradesh probably has a good deal of respect for holy men, but ask him what these holy men actually teach and he'll give you a non-answer. The inward path is by definition mysterious and hidden.

>I mean, there's a difference between having your average person recognise mystical traditions and then actually engaging in those mystical traditions.

True, but that doesn't mean that Vedanta and Yoga are esoteric or occult and it doesn't change anything in the post you replied to

>Your local farmer from Uttar Pradesh probably has a good deal of respect for holy men, but ask him what these holy men actually teach and he'll give you a non-answer.

In every culture low-IQ semi-literate farmers and laborers are not likely to have a detailed understanding of metaphysics, which is completely natural being that doing so is not their role in society and because they are less likely to have the required intellectual capabilities needed to do so.

>The inward path is by definition mysterious and hidden.

Only to a significant degree in modern western culture. Vedanta and Yoga are mainstream and a part of day-to-day life in India, in most Islamic and Buddhist countries also the non-westernized educated population is familiar with the inward path, it's no secret and is seen as having it's natural role in society which is neither mysterious nor hidden.

If there's French translation that would work for me, I speak french

This just came in the mail. What am I in for?

Attached: batc.jpg (2425x3181, 1.56M)

A lot of wasted time

>vedanta and yoga aren’t supernatural because Hindus think magical powers called siddhis, mystical experiences where one meets gods and talks with devas and wards of demons are not supernatural
disgusting pedantic sophistry
>metaphysics
are a supernatural realm of forms except the Vedics believed they were Gods and aspects of Brahman
>waking up
to a higher order of reality, a higher dimension of consciousness, accessing an occulted plane of existence.
>just becoming devoted
yeah laymen and priests who don’t believe what they’re teaching say all kinds of flaccid shit like that

listen you’re really fucking stupid and going out of your way to render purely philosophical and psychological the Hindu religion but: the Puranas, Pantanjali’s Yoga Sutras, the Upanishads, Tantras and in Raja Yoga, the concept of the Kundalini, Siddhis, Tappas, Jivatman etc there are extensive discussions of otherworldly visions, states of consciousness that allow Sages to know other realms, past-present-future, to read people’s minds, to leave their bodies, to experience past lives, to change their body’s appearance, to manipulate fire, water and air, to perform alchemical transformations and to read people’s souls.

You can keep restating the same thing, its all just philosophical and psychological, but no one who reads the primary source texts thinks visions of Krishna and Moksha and Siddhis are psychological and if they do they don’t believe any of the metaphyscial shit. Its not simultaneously possible for things like other worlds, gods and an afterlife to exist but people who have special knowledge of this don’t have special capacities. The very ritual of receiving divine power and being able to see the Self in everything is an occult eye, the seer’s eye.

I can’t believe you’ve said the same stupid thing 3 times. If hindus don’t actually believe that, then its an indictment of their culture not whether or not its actually what is said and was practiced by the vedics

>He's still shilling a reductionist definition of esoterism

Attached: Girls.png (449x401, 490K)

Scan it pls

This came out as well
amazon.com/East-West-Julius-Evola/dp/1935965670/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522106675&sr=8-1
Can anyone uhhhh buy kindle version and remove DRM? :DDD

Its not reductionist, its highly nuanced:

Esotericism refers to traditions that concern uncommon knowledge which is typically kept secret or OCCULTED from the public eye, for instance the Illuminati and their correspondence with Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington were an esoteric society.

However, religious esotericism, especially in the sense of the private teachings of Vedantists, Eleusinian mystery rites, Orphic mystery cults, Gnostic mystery cults, and Semitic-Chaldean mystery cults, are all esoteric in the sense that they teach occult practices to their initiates which the exoteric worshipers of the faiths of their cultures are not privy to. For instance the rites and magical incantations, transformations of the soul of the Orphic-Eleusinian mysteries are occult in nature, they have an effect in the soul of the initiate and are said to have an affect on that person's destiny, mind, and future in the afterlife and were for a time considered beneficial to health insofar as they would extend life. In the Osirian mysteries there was a similar connotation as was present in the later Bacchic cults of the Roman Aristocratic underworld. The Gnostics believed one could see the divine and mental planes of existence, came into contact with Sophia and Angelic hierarchies, could invoke their power and could ward off or subdue demonic influences through esoteric practices which were occult in nature. The Vedic sub-faiths of Vedanta, Shaivism, Shaktism, Raja Yoga all believed in similar practices and did indeed believe that the Soul of the person was lifted up, purified, enlivened and their body would be strengthened, even granted special properties like Siddhis and a healthier flow of prana throughout the Nadis of the subtle body from the various esoteric practices of those faiths, of course per other user's suggestion, the Vedanta taught in the west today and the Gnosticism of Veeky Forums and other forums is basically exoteric, most people do not read the source texts and if they do its in the grossest dilletantish or even etic manner where there is no attempt to participate in the gnosis out of fear, skepticism or lack of fortitude (what I am accusing all of you of doing essentially). The people of the ancient world did indeed believe in invoking hierarchies of powers, affecting the elements, reading the future and recalling past lives or making use of remote viewing, channeling spirits and even in avatar incarnations of their deities. To even attempt to try to relegate this to "poor crazy peasantry" is evidence that all of you have an agenda which is motivated by pragmatic cynical utilitarian approaches to these teachings. Hence the lack of primary source texts quoted in Evola threads, the total disconnect from the heterogeneous nature of these different schools, the anachronistic racialism and martial color of Evola's interpretation of these schools. I personally view Evola as an occultist leaning towards Theosophy

Thissa man, inna my country he issa nothing

The spine is pretty stiff, so I don't think scanning it is such a good idea.

I will take snapshots of one chapter and only one chapter, and post them.

Dubs decide which chapter.

Attached: batc_table of contents.jpg (2435x3251, 1.89M)

mama mia

Attached: Aussie.jpg (657x868, 142K)

\thread

Chapter 12.
Do some work you you doubles nigger

Very well. "Freedom of Sex and Freedom from Sex" it is.

Here you go. I apologize for awkward angles and any blurriness in the pics, but they should still be readable. You may find it of interest that Evola brings up the subject of cuckolding in this chapter.

ufile dot io slash o5s7m

S E E T H I N G

reduced all of you to your natural form nigga

>i also guarantee this book is just theosophical racialism adapted to nordicist thought
>Crowley is more important than Evola
>Thinking that occultism is the same as esoterocism
>Evola was a nordicist
How much autism can be contained in one person?

>You can’t have esoteric knowledge without occult practice
That's where you're wrong , kiddo.

Attached: wfUVEvx.png (455x561, 462K)

already been addressed above, in the context of the schools of thought Evola was pretending to adhere to Occultism and Esotericism are the same thing, if you want to distance yourself from the implications of esoteric religious practice go work in academia and you can be a sad atheist who can’t become emic and your colleagues will browbeat you every time you try to. Nordicism and Evola go together whether he wrote them or not. Crowley is more important than Evola in every respect.

You could have esoteric knowledge of cereal branding, anything worth learning that is esoteric religion is going to be by definition occult. Gnosis is an occult attainment, intitiation and transmission are occult rites

>F-fuck off athiest
>Nordicism and Evola go together whether he wrote them or not.
>Crowley is more important than Evola in every respect.
Stop. You're killing me

Attached: tenor.gif (220x165, 661K)

why would you read Evola if you're an irony poisoned cynical nihilist?

>Crowley
>Initiates women into his inner circle in exchange for sexual favors
>Someone pays him to teach Harry Potter tier magic, and as soon as the cash is in his hands, he tells the guy he's an idiot
>Says he's a satanist and sacrifices babies just to troll Christians
>Gets addicted to heroin
>More important than Evola
Sorry, no. I can't see how anyone can ever take someone who has a penchant for flippant behavior seriously as a wise spiritual leader.

he probably really did kill kids and the important thing are his works which have value. Evola's have less value, and Evola's career is about half as comical as Crowley's while also just as intertwined with farcical posturing, social maneuvering and discarding beliefs at random when it suited him. Most of the names I listed are not at all as tainted as Crowley, are widely considered by Western Esotericist researchers to be both esotericists and occultists and are more important, more quoted/cited, than Evola is. While none of them have the dishonorable reputation of having involved themselves with Fascists who would go on to commit the worst genocides in western history since the Mongols. The sophistry and flimsy side-stepping you've all done to get away from the original post and then the preceding, generous, explications is just more proof you do not take anything you engage with seriously. Evola is just a lifestylist thing for you to add to your /pol/ political proclivities. You aren't involved with primary source texts, you aren't interested in other esoteric traditions, you cling to this chimera of "traditionalism" which would be embarassing if it wasn't so bizarre since Evola basically was ostracized and Guenon abandoned his faith to LARP as a Moor.

I have 3 of his books saved on PDF and I haven't touched them, because everyone I've encountered who reads Evola is either an atheist who is just being a dilettante or is a LARPing know-nothing who hasn't attempted to deal with the implications of his beliefs or the primary source texts. If you would post excerpts, cross reference with primary source texts, give lengthy expositions of your own understandings and had a semblance of a sense of humor or wit, I would be more inclined to hear you all out. What I see is basically juvenile lifestylism like what Anarchists and most Catholics fall into, except the Catholics tend to be able to quote secondary texts at length since they're obsessive compulsive. But, you all are so disappointing. I'm not even opposed to strict initiation being a criteria for occult practice or the idea of a Kali Yuga or the necessity for metaphysical contemplation and an elite who are in contact with the divine away from the exoteric priesthood as Hall and others harped about this extensively contemporaneous to and before Evola. In fact Hartmann and many Masons, Rosicrucians and early Orientalists touched on this concept of the necessity for initiation and keeping silent in front of profane people.

>I haven't actually read anything evola has written because of anecdotal experiences and fuck /pol/, therefore Crowley is much better than him
It's takes a special kind of autism to be you

Attached: 1521941715329.jpg (468x895, 46K)

I've invited you to use his writings and your own understanding of the study of Esotericism along with the primary source texts we've alluded to and that he writes about multiple times. You can change my mind, but from what I've seen he is basically a second-rate thinker, who did not have any fluency in the languages he was purported to have understood, he inserted his own political beliefs (which were neo-feudalist theocracy) into his writings and then mixed this with late 19th century racialism. Further still, all the people who read evola seem to have amnesia, do not know how to organize sets and sub-sets, are incapable of arguing honestly, which should be easy for you if I'm so unschooled in the subject, and finally don't seem at all interested in the things they associate themselves with. Usually, all of that in combination would indicate a fraudulent group/mind. But, since I am a patient person, and Lord knows I've showed a degree of patience you would never exercise in this thread, I'm more than happy to not only read what he said, but in the context of the dispute (that there are litany of more important esotericists, most of whom are occultists, that are more important; and that esotericism in the context of Evola is basically just occultism cleaned up for the religious aristocrats he was courting) hear out your rebuttals of my arguments. All of this I offer you with total willingness to learn or to make compromise. If not, then I guess you have no self respect or are basically a LARPing anti-intellectual fag like I alleged multiple times in this thread. Go ahead and prove me wrong with your knowledge and understanding, people who don't have anything to show tend to be incapable of doing this.

>Evola was a neo-feudalist theocrat and a second rate thinker
>From what I've seen
Soo... you've literally never read anything of his and yet you're going to effort post long, verbose paragraphs of assumptions you've made on him (while making an ad hom to me) while ignoring the fact that you're comparing the weight of of Crowley to Evola based solely on personal biases because you haven't even read Evola in the first place.

Maybe establish the criterion by which we judge the value of an author besides "this person disagreed with me on x"

How about we start with the assumption that Evola is a neo-feudalist?

juliusevola.net/excerpts/Tyranny_of_the_Economy_&_Pseudo-Antithesis_between_Capitalism_&_Marxism.html

>Again, spiritual values and the higher degrees of human perfection have nothing to do with either the presence or the absence of socioeconomic prosperity. The notion that indigence is always a source of abjection and vice—and that "advanced" social conditions represent its opposite—is the fairy tale told by materialistic ideologies, which contradict themselves when they uphold the other myth, according to which the "good guys" are on the side of the people and the oppressed workers and all the "bad guys" are to be found on the side of the wealthy classes, which are corrupt and exploitative. Both of these are fairy tales. In reality, true values bear no necessary relation to better or worse socioeconomic conditions; only when these values are put at the forefront is it possible to approximate an order of effective justice, even on the material plane.

>I am not espousing an "obscurantism" for the benefit of the "ruling classes"; as I have stated previously, I dispute the superiority and the rights of a merely economic class living in a materialistic fashion
But, then he goes on to exalt Feudalistic societies and to name the best virtues as virtues which are almost exclusively afforded to Nobles in Aristocratic social arrangements. He also basically just says a bunch of neutral statements about consumer society and marxism being a virulent force which inculcates ressentiment, wow really original, and then makes normative statements about what it replaced. I don't see how this is supposed to relieve me of the anxiety that he is actually an apologist for theocratic feudalism when he repeatedly mixes normative and positive statements together in such a way that implies the superiority or Monarchism, Feudalism and Theocracy, the systems displaced by Capital and the revolt against Capital by the Socialists. Other than the acute, even tactful, attacks on Marxism and the somewhat less convincing critiques of capitalism, you've not shown any evidence he wasn't what I said he was. You also have not really addressed the two major disputes I have with all of you in this thread.

He's a lucid writer, one can afford to give him that, but there's nothing there I wouldn't have gotten from Anarchists or other thinkers like Nietzsche, Ellul, Heidegger or Stirner.

Thanks, didn't think you'd deliver desu

Crowley was allegedly shocked by the debauchery and excess he saw displayed in the silver age of Hollywood. So much for le wickedest man alive

>not just learning italian
What's stopping you? Are you in a great hurry or something?