Peterson and the Traditionalists

leftist are too busy to virtue signal and politicize every thread.

It was ruined to before it started. Read authors that actually matter next time. "Traditionalism" is just a /pol/ meme

Nice sentence (idiot)

Baby brain

I don't believe he has but someone like Evola is much further right than Peterson. The spiritual racism, anti semitism, and advocating of rape would probably put him off

Reposting since lost in flame war in other thread:

>How does /pol/ feel about Peterson? Is there suspicion that this recent craze around him and the possibility that he's a jew is a move to create a semi-intellectual version of the anti-sjw alt-lite in order to subvert the alt-right and keep newcomers exploring the tenets of nationalism in a zone where jews aren't spoken of negatively?

Go have tantric sex with your anime pillow, nostalgiacuck

Who gives a shit? He's an intellectual nonentity, just like his readers here

What order should I read and study into these people?

Evola, Stirner, Peterson, Nietzche

thanks

juts ufkicng read them you stipddi user

ya i am finna read em but idk what fuckin order fagott

Read Nietzsche and skip the others, read summaries if you must

Peterson is all you need. Start with the Joe Rogan Experience podcast

who do i believe?

People in general should give a shit. A cult of personality is being created around this Peterson guy and anyone with a tinge of curiosity should be wondering why instead of running around posting like a chicken with its head cut off, which is what many of the threads, at least on here, seem to devolve into.

me fucking close the thread
go read

Me: read evola and ride the god damn tiger

>a cult of personality
just because someone bothers to counter crying sjws doesn't mean there's a cult bruh.

The guy seemed to pop out of nowhere and was then suddenly everywhere. Threads about him on Veeky Forums are the fastest moving ones. People should be interested in figuring out why. My new theory in the form of a question is here:

Me: Organise all publications from these authors in alphabetical order and read them in this order (untranslated titles)

ah yes

ok now there's 3, who the fuck do i believe now??

Read. Everything.

I was asking what order to read them in everyone is just saying read them though

Doesn't fucking matter.

then how come people say to start with the greeks and not end with them?

Because they're largely pseuds.

It's a meme

he talks about eliade all the time and has him on his reading list.

Alphabetical order

Evola would hate Peterson, because Evola admitted that he came to loathe philosophers and only went into it to show them up and reveal the world of tradition to philosophy readers.

Also, Peterson is basically a liberal compared to Evola

JP includes a book series by Eliade here, I thought this was common knowledge.

jordanbpeterson.com/2016/11/book-list/

His psychology of religion is influenced by recent findings and scholarship that were not be available to the Traditionalists, I'm positive Guenon and Eliade would have been curious about them. Evola Is shit.

I'd be more interested in a meeting that can actually happen with a living traditionalist perennialist, f.e. James Cutsinger.

Still, JP Is a Christian rather than a perennialist.

>basically a liberal compared to Evola
Anyone is.

Unless you think influence can travel back in time, chronological order

Here's a nice little primer to Evola:

youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs

peterson is not a philosopher

Cause of what he did around Bill C.16 and other things.
youtube.com/watch?v=fvPgjg201w0
youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
Then he got more famous for being a great "self help" and psychologist.
And then more famous for being anti communist and "anti postmodernist".

I can't imagine Peterson is up with Evola's "throw a generation of young white men into the military-industrial meatgrinder" because Peterson's an advocate for the continuance of Western Civilization. JBP isn't a fag enabler like Evola too with his "traps aren't gay, Senatorial Romans had little girly boys to fuck too"

>new to peterson pasta for those unfamiliar
i think for someone new to peterson

the joe rogan interview is a good starting off point: youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE

and this interview gives a really good overview of his thoughts and the interviewer does a great job at asking the right questions to move jordan along and explain things more: youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

after those two you could start watching the lectures for one of his two courses (personality or maps of meaning)

and just go through the back catalog of his assorted talks and interviews at your leisure (quite a few of them are on other channels, some of which you can find on his youtube playlists page but some which you cannot).

i liked this little "debate" (they largely agree, but achieve some meaningful synthesis after wrestling with each others' ideas as well) he had with a fellow professor: youtube.com/watch?v=-RCtSsxhb2Q

btw his bible lecture series is pretty fun even though he tends to repeat himself. the last one (number 4) i liked especially.

His first two or three lectures are always similar and introductory.
Guess it's from being a university lecturer and used to teaching to oblivious people who know nothing at all about the topic.

I think a lot of what he says, you should know if you've read the tiniest amount. Crazy he teaches this to supposedly smart IQ college people..

Sentence yours makes sense not

Right, but the main issue is why a phenomenon is being created around an "anti-communist" and "anti-postmodernist" who doesn't mention jewish involvement in those things. So is he 1) legit and just a naive goy, or 2) intentionally being built up to mislead people, or 3) being intentionally built up to funnel people in the right direction of realizing the problem is jews and the destructive modes of thought they're disproportionately involved in the institutional furthering of, such as communism, postmodernism, and Marxism? That's the question, and those are the three most likely answers.

I think I got it.

He says that too.
"Why this isn't taught in university/school is inconceivable to me."
He usually say it around existentialism part and nazism/communist parts.

Like how people have no idea hundreds of millions of people died under communism.

i mean what you as a Veeky Forums shitposter regard as "the tiniest amount" is probably a lot more than average and the average is declining all the time. that's part of what peterson is railing against actually. he literally advises starting with the greeks too, which i'm surprised no one here has picked up on.

Or maybe it's cause political correctness and the madness that there are no inherent differences between the genders, is going rampant everywhere?

>muh joos

You literally don't have any other argument do you..

has anyone actually read his book? any impressions?

TL:DR
>Yes there's no inherent meaning behind anything.
>Everything has value > value is relative > nothing has value
>Life is suffering
>Even if pain is real, we all act as if it is real
>Pain is bad cause we act as if it is bad
>Epicurus of the 21th century

i read the first page

i liked it

*even if pain is an illusion
fug

Also
>Belief in something is good, even necessary
>There's great wisdom in ancient mythology

Who said it wasn't?

My argument is that jews are and have been disproportionately involved in what Peterson claims to be against ... so is he stupid or is he misleading people?

You're the one without one here.

so dep waow

...

He's just a meme. He talks a lot about self-improvement, so obviously, there's going to be some overlap with /pol/ and Veeky Forums's NEETs who are going to like anyone who can help them get out of the basement. I don't think most of the political stuff he says is very interesting or original (even most leftists are now "anti-SJW"), but he does express himself in an amusing way and comes across as very likable. He's basically the dad a lot of his fans never had. Part of it all is his Canadian accent, but he also has a sort of, I don't know, un-self-conscious but somewhat corny (for lack of a better term) quality that is very appealing in a way. He'll just sometimes say odd, funny things in an innocent way, like in a speech about evil, he'll say about Hitler or Carl Panzram, "Oh, he was fiercely intelligent, let me tell you." I haven't watch a ton of his videos, though. This is just what I've concluded from the little I've seen of him.

youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=fvPgjg201w0

we're talking about Maps of Meaning, right?
ps: thanks for the reply.

Just watch the 2017 lecture.
You could even just watch the last one
youtube.com/watch?v=6V1eMvGGcXQ

>My argument is that jews are and have been disproportionately involved in what Peterson claims to be against

Except they haven't you moron.

Of course they have. Are you retarded or simply uninformed?

Why do you believe Evola is shit in comparison to Guenon or Eliade? Also what findings in particular are you referencing?

that's because Eliade is required reading for any religious studies student. Evola is not. You can find out why if you read up on their thorny relationship and stop being a knob.

And you presume how Guenon would have "felt" - that's a good one - the man was described as a calculating machine by those who knew him.

Also, his interest in psychology was entirely negative, and he was personally acquainted with some of the movers and shakers of the French scene in the 20s and 30s before leaving for Egypt. (Read of his bizarre encounter with Robert Desoille)

Lacan's secret crush on Guenon has been examined in French circles, and the judgement of contemporary Guenonians on this thing is wholly negative too.

This

Lol

>Fuck the french - Jordan Peterson.

He's right though.
All you NEED is Jordan Peterson.
He answers all the big questions.

jordan himself says start with the greeks. get cracking, anons.

Maybe so then.

He must be aware of them, and he's probably read a bit about them. But there's an obvious social reason to not bring up a literal fascist. I imagine he piggy backs off of them mostly within a Jungian-spiritual framework, but doesn't necessarily buy into the traditionalist metaphysical theories.

This is pure conjecture.

The tradionalists were quite heavy on their metaphysics, which held a central position in their political thought. Evola's view on esotericism and alchemy in particular was radically different from the whitewashed psychological approach of Carl Jung, of which Peterson seems to be a strong advocate of.

The devil is in the details desu.

Well he does have Eliade on his reading list who was a strong supporter of the Iron Guard.

Peterson you can actually listen to instead of just read, and he's an absolutely captivating speaker. If you're unfamiliar with Jung, Frued, Dostevesky, solyzhenitzen, NEETZSCHE, etc he's an overall great introduction, especially his maps and meaning book/course, but his personality lectures are good too. Several hours of content to listen to in podcast form.

I would probably take Nietzsche next, beyond good and evil, the gay science, thus spoke Zach and cody, etc. He's super famous you'll figure out which works to look at. Not sure what order desu, but beyond good and evil would be great to read together with peterson.

Evola has a somewhat different take on the myth and symbolism than peterson and jung, so I'd probably do him after the first two. The mystery of the grail, metaphysics of sex, metaphysics of war, Herman tic tradition, heathen imperialism, fascism viewed from the right, his endless essays if you can read italian, revolt, men Among the ruins, ride the tiger.

The guy idk enough about

The last guy*

Evola is not worth reading, unless you happen to be a butthurt European aristocrat. He would detest most posters on this board.

His main contribution to society was helping to introduce yoga to Europeans.

The Traditionalists despised Jung and his ilk. Peterson's crypto-Freudian and neo-Darwinian spectacles he loves to wear so much while talking about traditional societies and "religious" doctrines are totally unrepresentative of them. He hasn't even tried to understand them. His understandings are false, materialist and satanic; and he too often enjoys giving his opinion as if its established fact.

If the apex of your understanding of initiatic/heroic doctrines is that when we were supposed nascent beasts of the tropics killing snakes with clubs, the memory became assimilated into a peripheral and subliminal psycho-biological substratum, to later project itself unto totems and symbols deifying the heroic act of a primitive, instinctual past, then you've done nothing but project a modern, materialist enterprise onto a foreign, ancient science of past ages and inner circles. The putrid rain really sets in when these dilettantes take ludicrous ends to falsely assume a "therapeutic" foundation in the few initiatic practices they even recover.

It hits my tongue like a harsh vinegar.

What do you do while listening to his podcasts? I feel like if I am listening while not doing anything I'm bored and wasting time, but if I am doing something I can't focus as hard

Where should someone start who is interested in learning Traditionalism.

Evola is heavily indebted to Jung's theories, though.

Historians

So then what is the correct way to go about understanding this "foreign ancient science"?

Read history books and lern 2 think for yourself.

Evola's Revolt is a great start. The first part is an introduction to universal symbols within the traditional world, the second part is him attempting a radical exegesis of history through a method informed by universal symbols. The primary criticism of Evola is the emphasis he places on the "warrior" caste: man is always feminine with respect to the divine, as the king is feminine with respect to the sacerdotal caste.

With regard to initiation, Algis Uzdavinys' work is indispensable in full exposition of Western esoterism. Don't approach him without understanding Neoplatonism and Egyptian mythology at a basic level. Evola will help with both: something like Jeremy Naydler's Temple of the Cosmos is good for the latter.

Someone like Bachofen and Fustel de Coulanges are more appropriate. Unless you'd like to elaborate.

Grasp a good understanding of theurgy and sacred geometry. Every aspect of traditional societies were centered around the divine. Even rudimentary gross work, such as agriculture, architecture, smithing, etc. Guilds were not without a metaphysical foundation. Guenon touches on this in his Reign of Quantity. Theurgy is a neologism for divine working. "God always geometrizes" Plato used to say. Thus, by employing divine symbols into our engagement with the world, we raise our souls to the level of demiurgic activity.

For theurgy, see Uzdavinys (especially important) above and others such as Gregory Shaw and Jan Assmann. We can't understand all of what the traditional world was like, but there are a group of "new Traditionalists" who are more mathematicians than literary critics to help us with some of the technical aspects. Kieth Critchlow and Robert Lawlor are great for this.

read his book Hermetic Tradition

Thank you user.