Got around to reading it. Very powerful. Fuck everyone who told me it was a waste of time.
>>25402597literly
>>25402597how has it improved your life?
No examination of the text, no discussion, no starters of what you liked or what made it powerful, standard cover image?>Mom says it's my turn to make the low effort troll thread!All fields.
Does it give you a good perspective to deal with the hellscape or does it just enrage you further by making you more aware of its intricacies? I’m sure Evola is right and he was no doubt a genius, I just feel like reading the book will infuriate me because of how much I agree with him.
>>25402704You won't get an answer from op but surprisingly it doesn't deal with the 'modern' world that much. It's more a guide on his metaphysics and the metahistory of the traditionalist throughline, with lots of comparisons to say 'see. See, I'm right because x, x and x are the same!'.It's hierarchical platonism presented outside the normal religious lens but with the doctrine of forms shoved to the side without being dismissed, basically, though some of it is genuinely interesting like his views on the tripartite 'soul' - body, soul, spirit, etc and the totem/soul divide stuff. The few actual modern world bits are him railing against communists and churches - as though albert caraco were crossbred with Nixon.
>>25402702>>Mom says it's my turn to make the low effort troll thread!Sorry that was not my intention
>>25402704>>25402715It was either in this or in Ride the Tiger, but he basically says the Catholic Church (circa. 1955 btw) doesn't care enough about the sanctity of marriage. >You let widows remarry? Skank alert!
>>25402597Very powerful sir.
>>25402597>evola claims some historical fact>look it up>0 Google results>source: my ass
>>25402597Guenon is better
>>25403026Rider the Tiger. He claims giving sanctity to profane marriages profanes the sacrament. He views marriage more as a magical ritual binding two souls, who can't be separated later, there is no divorce. Then there is the profane marriage, which is more akin matter of convinience and lower impulses.
>>25403026>>25403184This is always a comical aspect of traditionalism and Catholicism. Both Guenon and Evola recognized Catholicism as having esoteric aspects but both couldn't stomach the religion, as if to say there just wasn't enough magic. The issue that mostly destructs the traditionalist mind is that the Catholic faith already went through the issues they inherently struggle with. Take Evola in this case, he admits that you can just join and subscribe to an authority fetishism that posits gnosis amongst the leadership and adhere to a strict hierarchy. Of course this entails going along with the church on all these issues. Therein lies the problem for traditionalists. They also seem to love secret societies and Catholicism has never lacked any of those. They mostly like the material from the peak of the Church's institutional power, but some of those societies they enjoy were committed to the enlightenment ideals they hate or met in secret only to stumble across enlightenment ideals they hate. The majority of non-enlightenment oriented secret societies didn't offer much else, the Rosicrucians famously were just pamphleteers and if their claims are to be taken seriously then the scholastics were just slaves to ancient pagan masters. The offered alternative was a long and dangerous journey awaiting divine revelation right before the apocalypse. So what do you do while you wait? If you made this association public then sitting in prison or conscription on the high seas was a punishment, either way there was a common agreement you just turn into a protean machine so all you did was substitute one pagan master for another? If you decide that extinct secret societies are a waste due to the comical definition the church used at the time and decide on a living one then your options are limited. You can join the Knights of Pythias, but philanthropy likely wouldn't appeal to a traditionalist. You can seek out membership in Opus Dei or a meme society but Opus Dei has requirements for joining beyond reading le esoteric and then showing up to sign a membership contract like you would at a gym. In other words, you don't need traditionalism and what passes for it in these materials would likely be joke fodder for them. I suspect issues like these were frustrating to the traditionalists, and likely why so many of them had mixed opinions of Catholicism. >It's everything they claim to be looking for.>It's also rendered their philosophical paradigms obsolete.
