What the fuck was his problem?

What is he if not a traditionalist?

Oga booga magic is the belief in Forms now?

Indian magic and denial of actual European tradition?
Hilaire Belloc and Chesterton are traditionalists, Evola had his own thing which certainly wasn't European.

What I've gathered:

1) He hated everything we typically think of as 'traditional' (traditional art/institutions/etc), deeming them little more than 'bourgeois' and mere 'residues' from eras/dynasties/etc that are already dead and/or in ruins. The latter idea is explored in "Men Among the Ruins"

2) He believed in eternal/unchanging values (in a spiritual/Platonic sense) like truth/justice/courage/etc. With Evola's thinking, you could arguably make a new art form tomorrow which would be 10x more 'traditional' than anything by Donatello/Boticelli/etc (and he did, just look at his 'art')

3) He believed, above all else, that man should invest in his spiritual/soul dimension; which has been eclipsed in the modern age. He hated capitalism just as much as marxism, for example; as both reduce life, and the sum of Human existence/history, to monetary terms. He was open-minded about how one can (and should) discover this side of existence; having himself used drugs, though only once, to do so.

4) He delved into esoteric shit, though this is spoopy and hard to track down. He did a few re-enactments of Roman rituals, for example, which Mussolini was known to have attended/watched.

5) He is very reminiscent of Nietzsche, but has clear disagreements. Regarding the Übermensch, for example, he argues that this idea is false as it teaches people to be something more than they are; whereas he believes people should be 'true to themselves' in the most metaphysical way possible.

6) Climb mountains for maximum spiritual gainz.

Building on point one: he believed men should not 'take refuge' in mere bourgeous residues, such as traditional culture or fantasies of bringing back the past. Rather, he believed we should 'emerge' from the ruins (not least because there is always the risk that they will 'crush' those seeking refuge under them) and start anew; create new institutions/art/etc, rather than vainly identifying with (and defining ourselves by) things that are dead or dying.

He is something which is not marxist, liberal, progresive or traditionalist, he is his own thing.
Which is fine. But him being the posterface for "tradition" is an awful meme.
Hilaire Belloc, Chesterton, Burke, T. S. Elliot, Russel Kirk, John Henry Newman are the representatives of tradition because they actually held tradition important, not some term which you created and named tradition.

Stop sniffing those bourgeois residues, bro.

Stick to coke.

>He is something which is not marxist, liberal, progresive or traditionalist, he is his own thing.

Which is why I see him as somewhat akin to Nietzsche, who was also all over the place.

>But him being the posterface for "tradition" is an awful meme.

Not his fault that people didn't read and/or understand his stuff.

>Which is why I see him as somewhat akin to Nietzsche, who was also all over the place.
It's a good compariston, I'd agree that the two are in many ways very similar.
>Not his fault that people didn't read and/or understand his stuff.
Agreed, but that is why the meme needs to end. I don't get the so called traditionalists who for fuck if I know which reason champion Evola as their representative.

Anything else?

We...don't usually get anyone who's actually read him.

Nah. I haven't read that much of them. I read Ride the Tiger once, which come to think of it reminds me of his biggest point.

Basically, there's no point trying to resist the decline/entropy that 'higher' men (such as the reader, he assumes) perceive. Subject to the Kali Yuga as we are, we are only a few thousand years into a 'fall' that is set to take many hundreds of thousands of years.

Therefore, the higher man should rather invest in himself and remain true to himself. The forces of this 'decline' are far too powerful to face; and so, like a tiger, you are better off climbing on their metaphorical back and holding on tight.

Then, when it/they eventually run out steam, you dismount. If you have managed to remain true to yourself until such a time, you will then probably want to kill that tiger and establish some manner of living/existence/etc for all, albeit this time on *your* terms.

All of that, bearing in mind, that the opportunity to kill the tiger may not (and probably) will not arise throughout your life. Evola thought it might have in his own, which is why he entertained and occasionally helped both Mussolini's Brown Shirts and the SS; even if dispassionately, and indeed, he was often disparaging to both.

It's because Evola is what you get when you google "traditionalism" and therefore "right wing" pseuds latch onto him, same with Guenon etc.

Other traditionalists don't experience this because they're usually too muslim for /pol/.
Though he brought it on himself, I feel very sorry for Allen.

That's what I don't understand, our of all the conservative authors, why go with Evola?
I mean it's not like The Jews by Belloc don't have meme value (great book btw), is short and easy to understand.
But I guess I expect too much from /pol/, I know they are retards, but it's just fucking strange.

It gets worse.

Never tell the euro alt right this.
They're convinced drugs are degenerate.

Yet more based dudes than they, like Junger, didn't have an issue taking drugs.

In any case, Evola might be a meme, but do read him Veeky Forums. I know you're expecting some glorification of fascism, but there isn't any there.

>That's what I don't understand, our of all the conservative authors, why go with Evola?

Because his thinking has what their ideologies are lacking; depth.

Not that the 'Left' or those within a binary are any better.

That's just funny and inconsequential, the thing with this Allen guy is incredibly sad and life-destroying.

/pol/ is a really strange mix of ideas which is in the end completely incoherent.
You can't have racism and Catholicism both.

I guess it's true, Allen got turbo-cuck'd.

>Catholicism is European

You guys laugh at the we wuz kangz meme, but you are like Nation of Islam dorks claiming Islam is black.

Catholicism has been European for 1500 years.

It's the same with Spengler.
The number of retard neo nazi manchildren who claim him as one of their own Church Fathers is fucking infuriating.

>HURR DEH WEST IS IN DECLINE TRUMP EMPIRE DEUS VULT WHEN?

While he in fact saw empire as the very symptom of decline, not its ailment... I fucking can't with these people.

Spengler was paid.

1500 years means shit in the timespan of the white race its existence.

I'd rather subscribe to something that's Indo-European than something that's of a clearly Semitic origin.

Any New Age joke is better than this proto-communist party.

Guenon and Schuon didn't associate themselves with him, I think they were embarressed he should share the stage with them. There's a "fascist studies" article out a few years ago that argues Evola was not a traditonalist which sources contemporary followers of the school, I honestly couldn't comment

Oh, right, race.
Yeah, I don't believe in such a concept.
I won't even be going in the discussion, it seems the polfags have smelled this thread.
Wasn't he in line with Nietzsche and Schoppy for the most part?

>Yeah, I don't believe in such a concept.

Don't fuck the thread up, man.

And that invalidates him how?
Marx was paid by Engels his father's piggy bank, which just so happens to be the blood and sweat of the proletariat.
Marx lived off of exploitation of workers via Engels and since he was a delinquent debtor he also fucked over people who loaned him money or provided him with services.
Does that invalidate Marx his ideas in any shape or form? No. You need better arguments, kids. It's good for a spicy blogpost, but learn to debate ideas instead of people's background, typical millennial fuckwit.

Spengler saw civilisation itself as decline, but it would be foolish to believe he was opposed to empire. He was feverant nationalist.

Anyone here has authors like Belloc/Chesterton/Elliott to recommend?
I'm going to be reading After Virtue, The Conservative Mind and some Burke, where to go from there?
Tocqueville?

I won't respond to him any more, won't get baited into it.

No, I mean don't fuck up the thread with your egalitarian reality-denying nonsense.

I read the book and he doesn't get too excited about the megalopolitan era, which coincides with and fuels empire.

In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the book is mostly a mapping of the lifecourse of civilizations moreso than some modern Cassandra's take on the West.
In all honesty, loads of chapters in the book are about his thesis of pseudomorphosis, which is far more interesting than any prediction about the fall of the West.
I think he picked the wrong title. And I think in one of the forewords of a new print he kind of admitted that.

Did someone give me the reality denying egalitarian princess a call

Alain de Benoist
Dugin (for the memes)
William Blake
Thomas Carlyle
Emil Cioran
Mircea Eliade (corresponded with Evola)
Georges Dumézil
Giorgio Freda (disicple of Evola)
Ernst Junger
Thomas Mann
Wyndham Lewis
Celine
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Yeats

Is he actually a good author or a /pol/ meme?

You're the worst tripfag ever.

I'll screenshot this, thanks user. Any favorites?
I've read some Junger and liked him. He's also a fascinating persona, judging from the wiki.
Also, wasn't Celine a nazi or something? Didn't read any frenchies since high school.

He is a good author. I loved his prose. He called himself a "Dichter" moreso than a historian. And I think with that he foreshadows the narrativists of late 20th century historiography.

Good

he was afraid of lunar madness

His influence has gone far beyond those on the right, he was regualrly quoted by Deleuze

Spengler is fucking great.

Pro-tip: /pol/ never read him, just like Evola.

/pol/ doesn't read at all.
They just browse Facebook meme pages ( stop being a pleb :^) ), watch YouTube redpill vids with shitty editting and have the attention span of a tweet.

They're honestly millennial as fuck and then they go on and preach about 'degeneracy'.

I'm a big fan of de Benoist, he is undoubtably the best writer of the European New Right, not a polemicist and utilises lots of theory both left and right

archive.org/stream/BibliographyOfAnti-liberalLiterature/Anti-liberalBibliography_djvu.txt

Yes Celine was quite frankly nuts, but he was a fine writer

Certain authors get unfair reputation from polfags I guess, my perception of Spengler was completely negative due to association.
Might give him a try some time.
Hmm come to think of it, the name is quite familiar.
I assume I can find him on libgen?

On another note, Stop being a pleb has shit memes, Apocalypse and Earl of Grey have the superior meme game.

Maybe his manifesto but that's it, most of his work is available for free on his website.

So he does more articles than books? Or something like that?

Plus his book Beyond Human rights, his ebooks on amazon are very cheap anyway

It's a typical American meme page. I don't expect much from those. They have weird syncretic ideas. Which isn't all that weird when you know American history. Only they could produce jokes like Mormonism.
And fuck that Veeky Forums fuck from Ride the Neon Tiger.
He's a typical American campus shithead who, AGAIN, fucks up Evola's ideas by associating it with all the shit that doesn't even relate to Evola.
Why do American right wingers reduce everything to a PUA mindset and Veeky Forums's sticky?

His tips on becoming a real man by courting ladies and joining the US army is fucking cringeworthy and would make Gulio spasm with disgust.

Very few of his books have been translated, but most of his important work is in essays he hosts on his site

There is literally nothing wrong with bodybuilding.

t. Evola #1 fan who also likes Mishima

There isn't, but there is if you suggest it's the sole solution.
Have you even seen traditionalist authors? Have you seen the "men of tradition"?
They look exactly like "AIDS skrillex n Carl the Cuck xD" and that's fucking a-ok, because physical attraction is a dumbass Californian beach body concern.

Holy fuck I hate American right wingers.

America has the problem of mixing liberalism with conservativism, so Rand can somehow be compatible with... I guess anything?
Interesting. I had hoped for a book because I really hate reading smart stuff on screens, was hoping for an epub.

There used to be this Mexican dude with a very cool blog on fascism, but he deleted it.. And I forgot his name.

In any case, he made a good argument about fascism and its homo-eroticism. And looking at today's glorification of actual fags like Mishima and Yiannopoulos I'd say he has a point.

Funny situation here, during WWII the partisans shot homosexuals, even one general, but the granddaughter of the dictator is now all into gay rights and said "grandpa would have given them rights".
The fascists don't have red hands in this, they didn't seem to care much.

Is homoerotic fascism just a generalized response to the direction of modern civilization, what with the sedentary, controlled lifestyle most men live?

I believe that in order to transcend the body and subsequently the world one must first master it. It must be understood in order to be destroyed.
It's really just a mix of a) genuine desire for strong male bonds and b) greek (vis-a-vis schopenhaureian) aesthetics.

Mishima had a point with his bodybuilding and focus on beautiful physiques, Yanniodopopolous or whatever is a moronic prostitute and is only taken seriously by the mouthbreathers of /pol/.

You mean Mussolini's granddaughter?

Doesn't surprise me.
In any case, if you read the biography of dudes like D'Annunzio who dated a literal Lady Gaga ( Casati ), fascists are a strange bunch of self-contradicting resentful people with a fetish for cuckold rules.

No, Tito.
I've never had a thing for fascism, I dislike the strange mix of contradictory ideals swimming between nationalism and paganism.

What is fascism anyway? It doesn't mean shit nowadays.

It's a boogie man word used to scare sheep like people into irrationality dismissing those which do not subscribe to their ideology.
What it used to be? I guess a nationalist authoritarian ideology which had a lot of variation from country to country.

So Evola isn't a reactionary anti-egalitarian, anti-democracy monarchist as I've been led to believe?

Yes, he's fascistic and sucks at writing, too. He also never got laid.

No.
I don't know many traditionalists monarchists actually.

It's dead.
It was a 20's/30's phenomenon that died its violent death in the 40's.
It can never return the way it did. What we see nowadays on the right are neotraditionalists ( and a shitty attempt at that ) and authoritarians, but nothing 'fascist' in the original sense.
Stanley Payne has written some decent works on fascism and he says it's a MODERN paramilitary powered and revolutionary movement. Fascists were obsessed with bringing about a total overturn of society, a New Order effectively.

You don't see that nowadays. If anything the violence comes from the liberal left ( and I say this as somewhat of a leftist ), not the Trump supporters, who pride themselves on their pacificism, if you can call it that.
The Trump phenomenon isn't fascist at all. That's just liberals using anachronistic synecdoches as rally points. It doesn't offer a clear definition of what Trump is.
The alt right doesn't even have a vastly different world picture to replace the current with. Just here and there some adjustments and this and that reform, but nothing grand.
Fascism was grand. And even then Evola didn't even see that much potential in fascism for his traditionalist idea, so I'd doubt he would see a fucking reality TV celebrity who once was a regular guest at the Colosseum of American wrestling as a solution...

>traditionalists monarchists
Aren't monarchists generally traditionalist?

Anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic yes, not really much of a monarchist though.

>not really much of a monarchist
Well he was favorable to the idea of social inequality, ie. aristocracy and peasantry

Start with the Manifesto of The French New Right in Year 2000, there is an epub on bookzz. Most of his essays is also on the Folkscanomy section of Archive so can also be put on ereaders

archive.org/details/folkscanomy

Yeah, he was anti-egalitarian as I said. Monarchism actually requires a monarch however, something he wasn't necessarily very favorable of given that he was skeptical of civilization as a whole.

he really really really hated modernity

I dont blame him. Oftentimes I find modernity pretty shit too

What would anti-egalitarianism and anti-democracy lead to if not to absolutism? Either a monarch or a statist dictator

fucking this too

Holy shit, the videos on youtube about spengler are absolute dogshit populated by these dregs

Neopaganism in Nationalism is a reaction to the universalist effects of Christianity that has largely erased traditional aspects of a National culture. Nations need their own myths to unify around, folk epics plays a great role in this regard

a legitimately great author, with a fantastic outlook and analysis of art and how it relates to cultures and cultural outlooks and world-views.
He's great, regardless if you end up agreeing with him or not, he offers a universe of rich ideas and outlooks, that a bunch of meme structuralists and post-structuralists could only dream of.

Not really. In England Chesterton and Belloc were democrats, here traditionalism is nationalistic, hence also democratic since there can never be a return to the Austro Hungarian Monarchy. USA also was founded on democracy.
So it depends really, but it's not as widely represented as you'd be led to believe.
Traditional aspects survived as Christendom was the tradition. Paganism was also never a thing in most national movements.
Folk tales and epics don't conflict Christianity.
Christianity has often been the very idea which was central to the national identity (Ireland, Poland, Croatia).

Yeah, that is what would happen, but Evola did not advocate this, he thought it was just as evil as equality and democracy.

That's illogical
What did he advocate as the final result of anti-democracy?

Nothing, he thought that our current age was inherently evil and there was nothing to do but hang on in the turns and prevent yourself from being destroyed by it.

This is what he called "riding the tiger".

>christians claimin they're THE tradition

Wew.

I am not in conflict with the notion of Christianity and Nationalism, merely noting the problem some have with it, de Benoist wrote a great book on this issue. Christianity was influenced by pagan traditions wherever it was, every nations mold their own unique vision of it regardless. The Celtic Christianity found in Ireland was one that was often contraditory and heritical in regards to offiicial vatican policy

This interpretation comes with only having read Ride The Tiger.

Evola published four major works aside from esoteric writings in the UR Group's magazine: Revolt Against The Modern World, Path of Cinnabar, Ride The Tiger, and Men Among Among the Ruins.

Revolt was his first and had a less pessimistic outlook on life than Ride The Tiger and Men Among the Ruins (Path of Cinnabar was autobiographical.) It contains a very different outlook and in my opinion leans toward an ancient schematic of governance akin to the Egyptian pharaohs. There's also some whack Hyperborean shit he talks about but that's best understood as a metaphor to help understand his abstract conception of truth. To paraphrase him, his writings are best compared to star parallax. Remember that he's coming from an esoteric background, so he's aiming to describe the truth by broadly describing it using multiple examples rather than trying to pinpoint it with concise language.

Yeah I'm aware, I just intended to let the mature Evola serve as summary, this is usually what people want when asking things like this (instead of simply acquiring their own knowledge).

I personally think the hyperborean stuff is very interesting. I have been doing a lot of my own theorizing regarding this, archeology, early culture, the bible and christianity, platonism etc.

>implying /pol/ is a monolithic entity
hot tip for you: it ain't.

ignore this list which has many ridiculous recommendations

i would recommend:
edward feser
benjamin wiker
charles taylor
e michael jones
flannery o'connor (letters)
christopher lasch
paul edward gottfried
romano guardini
robert nisbet

What are some patrician far-right ideologies that aren't just trashy libertarianism and liberalism?

please listen

European is Catholicism but Catholicism is not European