Discussing capitalism and communism; the 'socioeconomic myth' and the agendas of materialistic political systems -

i guess when you realize you're a complete moron with nothing to offer you can just go full-on contrarian without a single drop of irony or self-awareness and hope the loonies jump on board.

Not all traditionalists are fascists, but all fascists are traditionalists.

But that's objectively wrong user.

No, it isn't.

Aren't fascists futurists? Traditionalism implies support for the Church and for the traditional aristocracy, and fascism does neither. Fuck, even the Kaiser of Germany opposed Hitler.

>Traditionalism implies support for the Church and for the traditional aristocracy
Wrong, traditionalism is the perseveration of traditional knowledge. Conservatism implies support for traditional hierarchies like aristocracy and the Church.

In what way was Hitler a traditionalist?

>Traditionalism implies support for the Church and for the traditional aristocracy
It doesn't

Me too, user

But the preservation of "traditional knowledge" implies that those preserving the knowledge will act on it to some degree, doesn't it?

>modern science has the slightest value as knowledge

not even relativity?

>hierarchies like church

traditionalists really have to abandon the church because how thoroughly it got wrekt by intellectuals over the centuries.

>it got wrekt by intellectuals over the centuries.
Jesuits aren't intellectuals, their heretics that deserve to be burnt at the stake, reeee.

Ya wanna say that again in English? For pete's sake.

Silly user, all truly honest intellectuals are Catholic, at least in the West.

>None of modern science has the slightest value as knowledge
Why do people read this moron?

I hope you get robbed, fucking richfag

>tfw anti-technology but I'm addicted to posting on Veeky Forums right now
Help me Kaczinsky bros

The same Academia which praises French Maoists? The same Academia which rely on a superficial reading of Baudrillard and deny the fact that he was a reactionary? The same Academia which praises pseudo intellectuals like Foucault, "thinkers" who only serve the neo-liberal agenda?

Evola couldn't into Economics lol, that's why the Nazi cucks that he loved so much went to war, their deficit was literally 30% of GDP LMAO

Fascism was modernist, retards lol. What about Hitler was traditional? Hurr womyn in the kitchen. Gas the fuckin Rhine

>sterilise retards industrial slaughter Poles and Jews de-Christianise Germany establish completely modernised state The eternal struggle of races is the only truth
so traditional

Yes user, the long awaited downfall of capitalism is just around the corner!

t. no experience with academia

>pseudo intellectuals like Foucault
>muh obscurantism
>muh b-but he fag right xD

>sounds about right to me
Explain it

>with the sole intention of subduing it for practical ends.
Just gonna completely disregard scientific research that has no practical applications?

What's the ratio of traditionalist philosophers and writers that are Catholic compared to those who are not?

Many of Evola's ideas are shared by the New Left and the Frankfurt School (including the ones posted by OP).

>pseudo intellectuals like Foucault, "thinkers" who only serve the neo-liberal agenda?
u outdid yourself, go to sleep

is this bait or do you just have no self awareness

i will when i get to a desktop - phone fagging right now

hes not anti capitalism. hes anti-materialism. theres nothing right or left about that. that's the sinister thing about marx, he'd say, was not that he used hegel's phenomenology to support communism - because even marx, early on, just wanted more than anything to describe what he thought was going to happen (as opposed to what should); what was really sinister was turning the dialectic into one of materialism. and modernity, with its stripping of tradition, left people without the defenses against an 'objective, empirical, rational, etc.' way of living - one based on materialism. it left them unable to conceive a political discussion that didn't use an appeal to material conditions (communist or capitalist) as a backstop.

It's a very popular opinion that his philosophy is extremely compatible with neo-liberalism. He probably enjoyed San Francisco even without counting the gay sex.

inthesetimes.com/article/19246/foucault-and-the-failure-of-the-left

evola is very similar in his thinking to heidegger, though he's a lot clearer.

his anti-individual traditionalism is what i imagine the missing parts of being in time, after the turn, would have been like

>Rothbard
Source? Not trying to be an ass, simply curious is all.

>None of modern science has the slightest value as knowledge

What?

just a kantian distinction between phenomenal noumena and transcendental things as they are

What?

sorry - i tried to edit and the words went out of order. he's making a distinction between phenomena and noumena. science only imperfectly gets at the phenomena

...

He's saying modern science doesn't reveal true knowledge (in Evola's words, of Tradition) and it's only useful "for practical purposes" (such as medicine and cars.)

It's not a controversial opinion at all, people who believe science can ever come up with metaphysical truths are a minority (although growing I guess.)

thats stupid tho because physics can give both a practical in application knowledge and knowledge about the nature of reality.

You clearly don't realize what "metaphysical" means.

nah. i just think it's silly to say science cant reveal some true knowledge when it obviously can, outside of evolas metaphysics.

>Baudrillard
>reactionary

brb going to find some baudrillard to read. what's his most reactionary book?

literally blind to being

It can reveal knowledge about the phenomenal world, to use Kant's vocabulary. It has nothing to do with Evola specifically. Metaphysics started with Aristotle, the science "of the whole".

jesus mate, have you even done the greeks

>christianity
>traditional

>existence robbed of any meaning
>fundamental insignificance of modern man's life

Those are both products of our socioeconomic circumstances.

dumbass

this, i got surprised by him, i was expecting some weird ideas and all i got was some sort of weird mad-max-tier villian

Evola absolutely hated christianity but later in life he saw it as a stepping stone for people to embrace some kind of traditionalism again in spiritually bankrupt times.

If it was at least a little traditional then, it certainly is now.

many of Evola's ideas (on modern culture and "cultural exchange" notably) were shared by none other than Gramsci - see his prison diaries.

favorite Evola quotes?
>All relationships are destined to have an ambiguous and crumbling character

>Neither pleasure nor pain should enter as motives when one must do what must be done.

>It is said that fascism ruined the Italian people. Military issues notwithstanding, I would rather argue the opposite: that is the Italian people who ruined fascism...
One among many, really.

hello plebbit

Post more Evola quotes. He says so much with so few words.

...

nice

Sounds like a less educated Nietzsche desu. And also he seems to say very little in that wall o text. Maybe you should look into Wittgenstein.

I mean at least Wittgenstein actually fought in a war ffs. At least he was adept in a practicable knowledge base (mathematics) and not syncretic fucknoise based on expurgated texts (theosophy, """hermeticism""") Wittgenstein may very well be the opposite of Evola in a sort of one is great and the other absolute shit kind of way.

Hey i can hate capitalism because my sense of ethics directs me to but I can still secretly please my father by adhering to his racism but also seem superior since I've dug up this super sekrit Wiccan fascist.

>butt blasted materialist

Evola fought in WW1 in an artillery regiment.

Problem?

artillery was literally the chair force of its day

Wittgenstein was hardly Skorzeny or Jünger tier material himself, now was he?

what's the point? that he didn't practice what he preached? he wasn't let rejoin the army for WW2 for political reasons.

Skorzeny fucking rules

witty:
>served despite having a medical exemption
>was wounded
>directed fire from no man's land with his super autist powers
>military merit with swords on the ribbon
>taught children ok he beat them up but they were too pleb to understand him anyway

evola:
>no notable battlefield decorations
>lied about being a baron
>strolled outside as a noncombatant during an air raid "to test his fate" and got btfo
>neet

fair enough, but what's your point?

also, please show us one - just one - source where Evola uses the aristocratic title himself.

Protip: you can't, so why try harder?

well almost every source, even those partial to him, calls him a baron. he didn't deny it either. there's one interview where he was asked why his title didn't appear in a register, and he didn't answer. but i can't find the source so don't quote me on that.

and what do you mean try harder? about how evola is an aesthete at heart, and not intellectually rigorous at all? men among ruins engages in contemporary polemics that would be right at home on a modern news site. ride the tiger is an embarrassing pastiche of summaries of philosophies that belie a surface understanding of them. not to say that he gets anything egregiously wrong. but it's shallow. instead of engaging in dialogue he picks things that agree with his worldview and lumps them all together without drawing links between the various ideas. you can't discuss anything worthwhile in chapters that are like five to ten fucking pages aside from masturbating to the eloquence of your rampant namedropping.

now revolt against the modern world is the enigma, and it's legit interesting. he should've stuck to that instead of dabbling in philosophy.

>Foucault
>"neo-liberal"
whew

you don't seem to understand why a man such as himself would refuse even to consider such a question. that's another matter. he never used the title himself, that is a fact.

if you are trying to make W. out to be more manly on account of his service, than I do think you're going to have to try harder, the discordant tone between his military action (conscription?) and his life & works is enough to convince any reasonably sane reader of that.

also, I think you're misrepresenting his works. ok, perhaps through no fault of your own since anglophone readers are dependent on what pusillanimous publishers dare publish, but there you have it, conflating polemical & topical works with doctrinal analyses is still mistaken.

also, the parallels between more than a few of the view in Ride the Tiger and Gramsci's notebooks is worth exploring, for what it's worth. (views on negros, chinese, music, Buddhism, etc/)

>his works
i.e. Evola's, sorry if that was not made clear.

i think it's fair to judge witty's service without judging him as a person. and he did get decorated. politesse isn't something needed in war, and i can easily imagine him as brave. now his teaching "career" on the other hand, seems to portray him as an abusive but brilliant teacher while i think he was just abusive. if his family could cover up the case against him they could surely go the effort of playing up his pedagogical skill.

it's possible that my copy of ride the tiger is poorly translated. it doesn't even have a translator's foreword.

why wouldn't he answer that question anyway? inb4 because he's a "baron of the spirit and not of this world".

>baron
hardly. you simply lack any firsthand experience of how a true noble person behaves. it is beneath them to entertain this type of thing, especially emanating from plebs and the merely curious.

ps: Evola does mention in his memoirs how people attributed him titles he didn't actually possess, but without going into details. we are dealing with terms of respect more than anything else.

Mussolini refers to him as Dr Evola, for example, at that time as far as I am aware, a person with a college degree was referred to as such out of politeness. (there is some lesser degree nowadays in Italy the bearers of which are referred to as Dr, but it's not a PhD).

also, you should try and make sure you download full copies of books you can't be bothered buying.

a noble title is hereditary, or conferred upon oneself by a higher authority. no matter how "noble" one comports oneself it's dishonest to accept from others or give oneself a title. and if lesser beings were the ones who attributed the name to him, then it's all the more reason to deny it. you're trying to say it's a sign of respect like "mr." but it's far from it.

tell me what translation your ride the tiger is in and i (might) reread it. i'm not going to bother to going over men among ruins again because i'm still sore at being flim flammed into reading it.

you read Italian (original) or French (Isabelle Robinet - world-class specialist of Taoism), user?

otherwise you've got J. Godwin's translation, though probably a truncated PDF as I recall there was an intro and all the rest of it.

check out the articles on thompkins_cariou.tripod.com courtesy of the wayback machine. a mixed bag but some gems in there. easier than reading an entire book when you obviously don't want to.

i read the english. and they removed the intro huh. wow rude.

i'll check out that site thanks.

could you expand on this or give me a reading recommendation that expands on this?