Is traditionalism just a meme?

9/10 times, internet traditionalists follow their retarded beliefs to be contrarian.

Reactionary movements in the 20th century were probably all backed by rich oligarchs so it probably isn't much of an independently innovated philosophy and their writers seem like peddling hacks.

It's feels>reals. Feels are really powerful, after reading Evola and listening to Rome and Arditi all day I was unironically considering fascism as an actual ideology. This all ended after I read about the massive shithole that was italy and the massive chimp out of the Iron Legion.

Since most faggots on this website do the same then that's why traditionalism is so popular.
It's because they say shit like "Which ideology do you follow?" like it was some "Choose your class" in MMOs.

Evola talks a lot about manliness and the masculine solar aryan etc principle yet he also considers tantra the best system in the degenerate age despite it gloryfing the female as a goddess

>This all ended after I read about the massive shithole that was italy.

In what regard was precisely a shithole user?

Bump

Appeal to tradition and traditions in general are some of the most retarded and backwards concepts on earth, the whole idea does nothing but slow down humanity and prevent change for the better.

The only time traditions should be allowed is if theyre fun and harmless. When theyre gigantic stupid traditions which are often dangerous and damage society they need to go.

I've travelled the world, and the amount of people ive met doing stupid idiotic practices because "its tradition" is just insane. I've seen people sticking needles into their eyes and and cutting skin off their penis because "its tradition".

No, stop, go away.

Actual traditionalism is far, far more valid than Ebola and his psychedelic shit

On the flip side, blindly embracing every technological advance seems to be leading us to closer to Skynet everyday.

There will forever be an oedipal faction that sees chaos as a ladder.

Whereas the traditionalists see order as their way up.

Whose wrong?

I think there is something to be said in favour of the value of putting certain standards and expectations of behavior beyond the scope of political action. It makes society more predictable and easier to navigate.

Evola was kooky, though.

Real aristocracy (ie "rule by the best") is a good thing though. Modern democracies aren't ruled by the people who are best at ruling, but by the people who are best at winning elections or getting a civil service job. The unintelligence of our elite seeps through society and is a major cause cause of the increasing vulgarity and plebianism in modern culture (i.e. people screaming at each other like idiots, watching TV and playing video games, worshipping niggers and being functionally illiterate.)

modern democracies aren't supposed to necessarily provide the best leaders, but provide a system of moving power from one person to another that is regular and provides easy legitimacy

This is key. Democracy is best not necessarily because it produces good government, but because it provides legitimacy separated from individuals and acts a safety valve for public grievances. When was the last time a western democracy had a succession crisis or a peasant rebellion?

>modern democracies aren't supposed to necessarily provide the best leaders
Then it's a shit political system. Stupidity is easy to find, and intelligence is rare. If no consistent attempt is made to find the best of the best, then our leadership will become worse and worse, because the "average voter" has almost no ability to locate and promote worthy individuals. The only thing that has kept democracy alive for so long is the limited power of the elected class, and the coexistence of a bureaucracy which is completely independent from the people. Bureaucracy is bad because every bureaucrat has only a small amount of power in a huge machine and thus tend to cause friction among each other in a stupendous fashion, but they do keep democratic society from degenerating into anarchy.

The safety valve isn't real. The masses feel some satisfaction in turning it, and thus get to feel somewhat powerful, but it doesn't actually do anything.

Cautiously move forward? Why does everything have to be in extremes.

>The safety valve isn't real
it literally is though

>The masses feel some satisfaction in turning it, and thus get to feel somewhat powerful.

That means its working though. Even if you disagree that any concrete changes are being made, the mere fact that public feels they're grievances are being addressed keeps the society stable.

Is backwards and ignores the nature of the human being looking forward

>burguoise explout
>not exploit anybody
Yeah man, it's all about exploitation amirite comr8?

>slow down humanity
The reason why the recent technological development was sent into motion was a century old tradition.

>comr8
You've never read Evola, did you?

>""""""""progres"""""""""

Way bigger spook than tradition

I am not the guy making Evola strawmen with words like "exploitation" in it.

>lets supplant them with a medieval mentality priestly caste, they surely know how to rule and will
thats not what Evola advocated. if this board wasnt such a circle jerk then someone would have called you out on it.

Evola's post-WWII works should generally be ignored.

After he was crippled by injuries sustained during the war, he compromised on a lot of his earlier principles to craft a narrative in which his physical weakness didn't diminish his worth as a "traditional" man.

>Traditionalism is pretty stupid, no one today who actually understands history would willingly go back to the olden days knowing what it entails.

Define traditionalism first. You realize that the way things are today wont last, right? We either develop radically new ways of organising society and technology or we destroy ourselves and return to 'traditionalism' because it works.

The olden days were shit compared to now primarily because of a lack of technology and not because of traditionalism.

>and return to 'traditionalism' because it works.

>nazism is a traditionalist ideology

Insanely weak bait.

Christianty and islam has existed for more than thousand years, do you think western society as we know it will even come close to that?

>a post revolutionary ideology is traditionalist

Jesus, I thought summer was over.

Evola was honest in his thought, and he dedicated enough time to it for people to take him seriously.
On the other hand I genuinely think that 99.9999% of internet traditionalists are in it only for how damn edgy it sounds. The more I stay on Veeky Forums, the more I notice that edgyness is literally the name of the game when it comes to ANY political, historical and artistical judgement.