(excluding Evola) Is this really the only introductory work to magic in theory written by someone who wasn't an hedon, """Academic""", hyperphilosemite or simply grifter?
>>25417620What are Hitlers contributions to this, and did this have anything to do with his rise to power?
>>25417620The stuff in this book is just made up. It isn't actually a study into historic magical practices as they actually existed.>>25417639Hitler literally just highlighted certain parts by drawing lines next to them. That's it>did this have anything to do with his rise to power?No, obviously.
>>25417643Hitler was an autistic proto SMT fan? That's pretty funny
>>25417643>>did this have anything to do with his rise to power?>No, obviously.Cope.
>>25417656>Hitler made markings in a book about magic, therefore he must have used magic to become leader of germany and fight ww2!!Why the fuck are you people like this? You're insanely credulous and will believe literally anything as long as it sounds remotely possible. And if anyone points out that it's obvious bullshit, you get mad at them. You seem to want to pretend that everything is real, while also at the same time not believing in literally anything that is accepted by the rest of humanity no matter how much evidence it has because it MUST be propaganda or mind control. Seriously, what is psychologically wrong with you people?
>>25417659uh oh bugman melty
>>25417666Sorry, I have to put up with you retards every day and it builds up inside.>bugmanSee what I mean? If you point out the obvious fact that Hitler did not use fucking magic to come to power you must be a "bugman". you people form your entire belief system based on this bizarre reactionary psychology that makes you believe random bullshit for no reason
>>25417675I mean the belief that Hitler used magic to come to power didn't come from no where Anon. The foundations for said belief stretches far back to Carl Jung in his essay "Wotan" were he posits that Odin helped Hitler achieve power and intellect. Not sure why you're sperging out on Anons here.
>>25417650He's just like me!
>replying to tripfags, ever
Try the attached. I've heard good things about The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction, but my copy hasn't arrived yet. The hannegraaf one is a touch polticial for my tastes but other than that, it's fine. Lots of information in both around the history, background and rough shape of their practices. Meditations on the Tarot, Chapter 1, is worth a read and a little closer to actual 'magic' if more a guide on the why and a touch of how. If you're looking for a prescriptive and operational manual, can't help you.
>>25417824Hanegraaff is a decent researcher but his takes are dogshit, especially his thinking that any fusion of science and mysticism is pure cope in the face of the march of materialist rationalist. But also western esotericism is a pretty bad introduction to mysticism and magic in general because it's wrapped up in judeo-christian schizoposting. Learning parapsychology and the history of world religions is a better intro.
>>25417829>Hanegraaff is a decent researcher but his takes are dogshit,His screeching insistence that Evola was a cryptoantisemite is proof enough, but it doesn't make the information less valid. Especially the framework stuff. It's worth a read, and he doesn't slip his own stuff in as someone else's conclusion. What he does do is literally cite himself over and over again. So it's easy to pick out. Image was too big to attach, see link. The red is where citing himself starts and stops. Files.catbox.moe/hby0p1.png
>>25417824I've got the book on the right. I really like it.
>>25417857I don't refer to it as often as I do the one on the left (which given their relative conditions is probably obvious), but it was a great read. Next time we get a 'how magic' thread I'll pop my thoughts on the one I'm waiting for in the mail compared to the two of them in. Find out if it's a worthwhile read or not.
>>25417852Yeah I noticed that a lot when I read his introduction to western esotericism. The information isn't bad but it's tiresome to parse through the takes. To my mind a great academic can present the work not only accurately but fairly, instead of being snarky about the people and motivations.
>>25417867That's fair. I watched a video of a talk given by him and some jew once and he comes across as both smug and beige.I always tell myself I'll take that collection of essays and poems I like, have it printed and bound in such a way that it'll survive the apocalypse and keep it on a shelf. Maybe if I ever find a way to do that I'll edit myself a copy of his book and reprint it the same way.
>>25417643>The stuff in this book is just made up. It isn't actually a study into historic magical practices as they actually existed.anon did not read the book. many such cases.
do you guys actually practice the magic in these books, or are you all just reading this stuff from an academic perspective?
>>25418135fuck off /v/ermin
You'd legitimately be better served by reading picrel first.
>>25418159No I hate Freemasons and all theosophites
