Julius Evola: Radical Traditions

Basically this if you really want to read read reactionary literature read someone like Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Confucius

>Machiavelli
>Hobbes
>Confucius

>Reactionary

Are you guys fucking retarded

They're realists, not reactionaries

Based, progressives on this board would rather read about transgenders and approving pedophilia though

Machiavelli was more than anything a radical amoralist, but if you're inclined to style Hobbes and Confucius as "realists" it just means you're conservative as well. Doesn't mean they aren't.

I fixed your image to be more accurate.

nice

There is 1 thread right now

There are two threads on the front page alone. And you also need to look at it from the sense that these threads are made every day. People don't lurk before they post anymore. I blame facebook.

My thoughts on Julius Evola are:

>Liberalism has often been reproached for this purely external and materialistic attitude toward what is earthly and transitory. The life of man, it is said, does not consist in eating and drinking. There are higher and more important needs than food and drink, shelter and clothing. Even the greatest earthly riches cannot give man happiness; they leave his inner self, his soul, unsatisfied and empty. The most serious error of liberalism has been that it has nothing to offer man's deeper and nobler aspirations.

>But the critics who speak in this vein show only that they have a very imperfect and materialistic conception of these higher and nobler needs. Social policy, with the means that are at its disposal, can make men rich or poor, but it can never succeed in making them happy or in satisfying their inmost yearnings. Here all external expedients fail. All that social policy can do is to remove the outer causes of pain and suffering; it can further a system that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and houses the homeless. Happiness and contentment do not depend on food, clothing, and shelter, but, above all, on what a man cherishes within himself. It is not from a disdain of spiritual goods that liberalism concerns itself exclusively with man's material well-being, but from a conviction that what is highest and deepest in man cannot be touched by any outward regulation. It seeks to produce only outer well-being because it knows that inner, spiritual riches cannot come to man from without, but only from within his own heart. It does not aim at creating anything but the outward preconditions for the development of the inner life.

(From Ludwig von Mises' "Liberalism")

I largely agree with his thoughts

I'd love to have seen fascism not being implemented until several decades after similar to far left ideologies so we would have more strung out philosophy to digest

I thought confucius was more conservative than reactionary

>Austrian crap

Yeah go somewhere else with your voluntaryist crap.

he is /ourguy/

>People don't lurk before they post anymore
So much this, will they ever take time to read?

user from /pol/, comes to Veeky Forums to discuss evola. many such cases.

This was a statement entirely separate from his economics views (in terms of which school one would subscribe to) and he wasn't a voluntaryist.

Is Jews Ebola /ourguy/?

Kek

top kek

Read "Men Among The Ruins". Loved it. I agree with him on most topics, especially his emphasis on the metaphysical. I wish this board wasn't so infested with Marxist cucks.

He might be /yourguy/. He's certainly not /myguy/. I have a different guy.

>liberals seek spiritual wellbeing
Not for the past at least half century, retard. They are the MOST materialistic and the most in denial of the spiritual.

Also, what a typical amoral Jewish apology to implicitly allow degeneracy whilst escaping blame for its destruction. Shouldn't have expected more I guess.

you can just tell that all these faggot Evolaposters haven't even read him

Who is /yourgoy/?

Example? Which posts? Why? You're just talking out of your ass to feel superior. This board doesn't need any more pretentious wankers. Please leave.

Possibly

He could be if this place wasn't a leftist shit-hole.

>tfw to smart for Evola's esotericism

You didn't read far enough in. He was saying that liberals do not actually seek spiritual wellbeing from the state because they don't see the state as a good mechanism for it precisely because social policy (state policy) can only deal with material matters and spiritual wellbeing is immaterial (though good material conditions certainly make finding spiritual wellbeing easier.)

Also I have no idea why you are connecting him with liberals of the last half century, because he is a liberal in the classical manchester/libertarian tradition. He is saying that the state can't possibly hope to disallow degeneracy because it will then just become more degenerate as it slinks underground.

He has a fun interpretation of Nietzsche, and dares to try and rip Heidegger a new asshole.

>He was saying that liberals do not actually seek spiritual wellbeing from the state

This is one big strawman. His detractors do not link spiritual well-being explicitly from the state. They make the much grander point that a civilization/culture that does not hold spiritual well-being as its highest ideal, well inevitably cease to seek it. Given the explicit dialectical link between the state and culture, they see the state as a means to this end - rather than an 'end' of spiritual well-being in itself.

Any society that places physical/material well-being over spiritual well-being will end up, sooner or later, forsaking the former. Modern society is evidence enough of that - religion/spirituality are receding, with atheism/scientism on the rise.

why are you so angry

hinduboo fag

So was Schopenhauer. He recommends reading the Bhagavad Gita before going into The World as Will and Representation.

Maybe there's something to it?

I did understand that. You're not understanding my criticism.

Put much better than I could. Nice trips also.

I think Hinduism is pretty close to the mark as an accurately representation of spirituality. Everything else is kind of a lesser shadow of it. It's also the oldest, so that's something. However, for me, none of the major religions satisfactorily answer the problem of pain, particularly in the natural world.