What exactly conservatives try to conserve? The status quo. But today's status quo is yesterday's revolution.
Chesterton had the same opinion:
>The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.*
*(Chesterton's use of the word "traditionalists" here is different from Evola's.)
What is necessary is a defense of principles, not of moribund political and religious forms. In theology, these principles were to be found, not in any one particular religious form, but in the perennial tradition or prisca theologia:
As regards to political movements, Evola criticized conservatism as being merely reactive to the initiatives of the left. What was required, he argued, citing de Maistre, was a revolutinary movement towards the origins. But, in accordance with Evola's cyclical view of history, "towards the origins" actually meant going forward, not backwards. Hence how Evola could reconcile his traditionalist views with an interest in radical aesthetic movements such as Futurism, Dadaism, and in "heterodox" religious and magical traditions of the "left hand path", such as Shaivism and the Tantras.
In the Kali Yuga, certain practices which were once forbidden are now permited as a means to accelerate its end and to restart the cycle.
Tl; dr from Evola's point of view, reaction is futile and the conservative revolution is the way to go.
Technically a lot of conservatives are reactionaries, so they don't want to preserve the status quo, they see the status quo as rotten and want to go to status quo ante.
Jeremiah Hall
>everything that was once revolutionary is bad
The whole premise is a fallacy, tradition is a spook. Pretty much everything was revolutionary once, all the way back to the agricultural revolution. And I'm sure if we could learn more about the stone age, they also went through countless revolutions, changed social structure and religion several times. Tribal people still living today have a huge variety of beliefs and social systems.
Just pick a time period which you think was ideal and want to go back to, or present a system you want to create. But this whole appeal to tradition makes no sense.
Kayden Torres
>Tl; dr from Evola's point of view, reaction is futile and the conservative revolution is the way to go. Now there's one hell of a task. How do you suppose this revolution be put to works without a great catastrophy or economical collapse to strip the people off bread and circus? The masses will not abandon their hedonistic, self-indulgent and self-centered policies and beliefs that they have been raised in unless they absolutely have to. Do we simply wait for it to happen, or what?
Lucas Rogers
But the quo ante was also revolutionary at a certain time period. Unless you adhere to timeless principles you are merely looking reenact exterior and stereotypical appearances.
Jacob Lopez
National Socialism and Fascism were modern, revolutionary attempts at a societal regeneration that sought to bypass the leadership of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie and redirect the potentialities of the proletarian revolution towards traditional ends. The shadow of these political events must have been in his mind when he wrote that, but admitedly in the Tiger he took a more passive stance (based on the Taoist principle of Wu Wei or non-action) of waiting and preparing.
Except that by trying to pinpoint "timeless principles" you often slide down to the pit of utilitarianism.
Nicholas Ramirez
>when he wrote that that = pic related.
Ian Rivera
>utilitarianism Farthest thing from Evola. Read the introduction to Revolt Against the Modern World.
Joseph Fisher
How do you figure this? For Evola the "timeless principles" make up the capital-T "Tradition" that's been passed down by various esoteric orders through the ages.
Logan Rivera
Also implying revolutions are spontaneous popular movements. With a few rare exceptions, revolutions are lead by fanatical vanguardists with financial backing by national or, more often, foreign interested parties.
t.
Evan Perez
The agricultural revolution was a product of outside or inside subversive political forces for the purposes of monetary gain?
Gavin Howard
Uhg, except the agricultural "revolution" was not a political revolution at all. The name "revolution" appended to it is merely an analogy.
Aiden White
Problem with this whole post is that it seems to assume change is always good and stagnation is always bad. But that's not true and there's absolutely no reason to think that would be true.
It's more accurate to say being eternally for change or being eternally against change is the only bad option because it ignores current conditions in a society in favor of ideology. Sometimes a change is good and needs to happen and other times change is bad and conserving the current situation is good.
Furthermore, it tends to be different for different people, movements, organizations and nations all of which can be the losers or winners of the status quo. Easiest way to tell the stability of status quo is to see how many in a group, be that group citizens of a country or countries themselves, are losers and how many of them there are proportional to the winners. The higher that proportion the less stable it is because more and more actors have inherent desire for change.
Joseph Flores
>it seems to assume Actually it doesn't and that is the point. >It's more accurate to say being eternally for change or being eternally against change is the only bad option Agreed see OP.
Jason Edwards
The American Revolution?
Connor Martinez
>Agreed see OP. I've seen it and OP seems to argue that being against change ever is bad because society today isn't the same society 100 years ago or 3000 years ago. But that's not an inherently good thing, the main reason West is so wealthy and prosperous today is because of capitalism whereas millions of people in the early 20th century thought of capitalism as inherently evil and exploitative and something that we need to be rid of. If we had made that change the West would be as poor or poorer than the former Soviet Union.
Chase Powell
>The French crown didn't support the American Revolution
Dominic Bennett
Well, it did after it was already underway.
Parker Sullivan
The OP discussess principles and political forms. Nowhere does it discuss economic issues. You could have capitalism without say, democracy. But this is beside the point.
Jose Ramirez
So it's like Hegelian Dialectics for plebs.
Connor Baker
In Latin American history, you can find the hand of the Eternal Anglo behind every independence movement from Spain. Remember that Spain was under Napoleonic rule and Britain sought to retaliate the continental blockade. Don't get me started on the French and Bolshevik revolutions...
Justin Torres
>"Oh shit, their colonies are revolting. We should ship them supplies to fuck with Spain/France/what have you
Versus
>oy vey, we have been behind every revolution in the past 100years, eh tommy?
Blake Long
>oy vey, we have been behind every revolution in the past 100years, eh tommy? Ridiculous point that no one is making.
Jacob Fisher
Yeah but is Trump the avatar of Kalki?
Nathan Wood
What's funny is that there IS one extant institution that completely embodies a living, evolving Tradition. It's an institution that has been around for about two millennia, started with some bedrock principles, and has gradually maintained those principles while adapting to the times. It seems to be the most perfect example of what Evola seeks.
But, of course, he disliked it.
Kevin Carter
Bump
Christopher Fisher
Pope Francis is a total cuck and he may as well be the last pope as a consequence of his own doings
