Thoughts on the Traditionalist worldview?

Traditionalism is mystical, non-useful, garbage. Evola is only useful as a historian.

Men are evolved for hunting/fighting. Humans are evolved as pack animals, and naturally organize society along lines of groups of related extended families. Men automatically organize into hierarchies by ability to be an asset to their people; however, people afford rights/respect to other people in their community due to caring for one another. There are no natural rights other than what people afford to one another out of altruism. Altruism is a function of degree of genetic-relatedness. Spite is the corollary of altruism and is determined by degree of genetic distance. Both are be described Hamilton's rule rB>C.

Attached: 1487306375022.jpg (376x365, 21.18K)

Traditionalism can be a useful tool but there are several misconceptions about it. I believe a few of them are inherent in your reasoning.
Guenon only discusses cyclical history because of his studies into Vedic philosophy. It is a concept that is discussed widely across Traditionalist philosophers.
The Kali Yuga means we live in an age of spiritual degradation and that through spiritual transformation, we may return to the Satya Yuga (golden age).
Governments in an of themselves are profane. I'm not sure where you're seeing out and out theocracy being advocated for outside of the idea of the Philosopher-King or King being God's vicar on earth.
Fair
Modernity has crushed man's ability to to tap into and utilize the metaphysical aspects of his being. For better or worse, humans have had spiritual systems in place since their beginning. In the post-Enlightenment west, we see rationalism, science, and politics supplanting religion, tradition, and ritual.
Traditionalists believe in a balanced, normative relationship between the sexes, with each one dependent upon the other. Social structures can only exist cohesively with the appropriate amount of feminine and masculine principles.

Now, with those points addressed, I will discuss some of my issues with the Traditionalist school that you may not be aware of.

Traditionalists aren't always traditional and a traditional man doesn't have to be a Traditionalist. This is a problem of semantics and you will find there are many Traditionalists who are quite progressive in their views on things. There are far-right strands (see Julius Evola) but they, surprisingly, are the outliers. There is something fundamentally wrong with a European man who dons a kufi, grows a beard, and moves to Egypt (Guenon). Schuon was also an abject degenerate.
The Traditionalists believed that you had to have a "tradition" and their litmus test for the validity of a religious or spiritual path is often times quite restrictive. Guenon, Schuon, Lings, and Burkhardt all converted to Islam because of this. Why? Because Islam is a still living tradition that has not been tainted by modernism, your sheik maintains a lineage presumably back to Mohammad, and, finally, it provides initiatory experiences by means of Sufism. You will find that conversion to Islam is by and large the norm amongst Western Traditionalists based off the precedent set by most of these thinkers. I have also seen Hinduism and Buddhism practiced and, less commonly, Judaism. Least of all is Christianity but Catholicism and Orthodoxy tend to attract people a Traditionalist bent. The need for the tradition to be living excludes European pagan belief and most speculative esoteric thinking. There also should be an initiatory or esoteric function that allows for penetrating, deeper spiritual truths than the exoteric, everyday religious functions (which are required as well).
Traditionalism is good at getting men to think deeper about their soul or the nature of the world. It provide criticisms against modernity that are quite good. But it doesn't have the force or ability to move entire populations to action. It, often times, ends up being filled with lonely, isolated type individuals who cannot handle the bleakness of the modern world and so instead of fighting retreat into spiritual navel-gazing which makes them feel better than actually revolting.

OP, if you are interested in Traditionalism, start reading and leaning more heavily on Julius Evola. Julius Evola was able to take the criticisms of modernity and apply them to a radical right-wing train of thought that is more in line with European thinking. It is missing several of the aspects of the thought of Guenon or Schuon. His esoteric thinking is rooted around various different school and his thought is much more fluid and applicable across a wide spectrum of ideas. He provides ample study on Western European spiritual belief and on how we can "become gold from lead". Many Traditionalists are loathe to include him in their field because he was quite critical of some aspects of the Traditionalist school (i.e. dressing up and pretending to be Mohammedans) Don't get locked into the "big T" school or thinking that it is going to save the West. It's not.

Attached: ride.jpg (1100x1100, 347.45K)

Interesting topic.

Possibly, at least the modern capitalist idea of permanent growth is bullshit. You can find such patterns in history, however it is questionable how accurate our understanding of history really is, and what has been covered up or simply lost.
Don't know how accurate the vedic account is, but it certainly is a dark age we live in currently.
Maybe. It is curious how I sort of thought that over 10 years ago when I was an atheist, but sort of wanting to believe in some new agey spiritual things. I thought that ultimately to create a society that is closest to perfection possible, it would have to be a theocracy. However the religion of the theocracy would have to be the "correct" religion. The question is what would be the religion of the future society?
Very much so. Not much to add.
Yes, women have to be kept in check. They act on feels and based on their mood, which is basically determined by dice every now and then. They should not have power over men. They might be allowed to have some say in certain affairs in society, but this should be limited.

Not OP here, but thanks for taking the time for this high quality post.

you are mistaken already if you think that's view, they are not philosophers by their own admission, they are simply putting together, translating and explaining traditional doctrines of metaphysics, state, race, war, etc… to a chosen western public
if you are even mildly interested in understanding how our ancestors thought before muh BASED modernity(which holds them as essentially dumb superstitious inferior savages) you may want to check them out

We need to go back to the Early/High Middle Ages.

Those were the times.

Pic related are burning jews…

Attached: oy vey thats hot.jpg (515x399, 108.7K)

Phenomenology and Empiricism are for those too stupid to understand the more advanced concepts and people having the neurophysiological barrier for abstract thought like Anglos. While many of those concepts were true, we have evolved waaay past them. Well, some of us at least …

So it's like theosophy except retarded.

...

Good thread.
People on this board really need to look into Evola, Spengler and Guénon and the criticisms they had of National Socialism.
National Socialism already had a lot of degenerate elements. There was first wave feminism. Women had the right to vote and were given important positions in society.
There was no sense of religion, only a decaying version of Christianity.

It's important to look into the positive elements of Islam to. Both Evola and Hitler praised Islam and Guénon even ended up converting to it. Many contemporary right-wingers have converted to Islam to. David Myatt is one of them.

Anyone that talks about these things is often called a shill on this board.

You're a bit late, OP. Back in around 2013 Zig Forums was home to plenty of Reactionaries. Nowadays things are a bit different, as you may notice if you pay a little more attention.

Attached: 218f60f3ccb68189f2c4d9c30baf464a69c98f5430157097ff52394342de4b43.jpg (255x255, 17.85K)

*too

Weirdo's trying to apply hindhu ideas to a much older and much more complex civilization, that they themselves don't understand, because they never bothered reading modern philosophy.

Here we have a problem, by the Western definition, the Islam is not even a religion, it's atheistical because it has not personal God and it's ideological, because it's not about a personal moral understanding of your place in the world, but about following laws. That is why you have no many people saying, Islam is not a religion, that is enlightenment thinking on the subject, the West thinks of the metaphysical and spiritual as highly spiritual, the rest is just politics.

mean highly personal

Traditionalism fused with a nationalist socialist worldview is the only hope for white men left to maintain morale

Indeed. Religion isn't personal, quite the opposite, it's about your community.

see

National socialism is the only solution.

I can't believe that converting to another semitic religion which also happens to be arab supremacist and even leaves room for the jews to nicely fit in and run things behind the scenes is the way forward for European man.

No, religion is personal, ideology is about community, that is how people of the West view things, to think otherwise is to no longer be European.

I don't think it is viable either, but that user should've made it clear that they converted to Islam essentially only to be initiated into esoteric branches of Islam, like Sufism, not for a particular love of Islam in all of its forms. Guénon himself has criticized abrahamitic monotheisms. They were after those elements in Islam that transcend Islam. The choice of Sufism was practical, since it was essentially impossible to be initiated in some eastern schools, and Sufism, with its heavy eastern and Hellenic influence, is the closest alternative.
Guénon himself argued that a restoration of traditional Catholicism was the closest alternative for the west.

that's not what I said.
It isn't. Islam welcomes all people. There are plenty of white muslims in Russia. But Islam is very patriarchal, which makes it's adherents act tribal. There are pretty much no Islamic countries that have mass immigration.
Islamic countries have way less Jewish influence than western countries. They also kill more Jews

t.western chauvinist

This, it is by no means perfect and, like many other many other social systems, has it's own vectors for corruption and degeneration but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the most natural form of government to us.

It's very telling that the early middle ages (despite being christian) fitted this model

Considering how shit the board has been threads like this are a breath of fresh air tbh

Most of the times when people convert to another religion, it is for "practical" reasons.
I believe that in the future many men in the west will convert to Islam simply to have a chance to get married. Currently in a lot of European nations, if you get married today, you pretty much have a 90% of getting divorced and losing all your assets.
It's pretty sad that mainstream conservatives always get caught in a "modernity vs Islam" framework and so never offer an alternative.
In this way opposition to Islam will ironically be the very thing that makes it prevail.

If anyone wants a quick rundown that holds more clarity in describing Evola and the Traditionalists, this user here made a solid post.

Attached: 93C17C90-6B71-4EBC-8439-F2A11E9957C5.jpeg (932x1080, 866.34K)

Yes.

Cuckservatives like Gavin McInnes call themselves "western chauvanists" because they deny race and think the west is great because of it's values, while in reality all of the good things in the west are due to our race and the bad things are due to our values.

I know you didn't mention that it's a semitic religion I used my brain for that part. This is just yet another civic nationalism: the religion which by pure coincidence happens to have the vast majority of its members be shitskins with arabs at the forefront. They're completely in favor of racemixing of course. It's convenient that jews can blend into leadership positions of the most economically profitable states like the Saudi royal family. You're not fooling anyone. Although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're acting in good faith and simply made a horrible, horrible mistake.

Could we worst, I could call myself a traditionalist or nationalsocialist and helping the enemy by introducing meaningless wackjobbery into discussions instaid of actually doing something.

Of course weak-willed men will sell out their ancestors by whatever means to make things easy, or even regular or strong-willed men in a moment of weakness. To an extent I can't blame them, although it's hard to pity the coward too much. On the other hand if things collapse and the white man's fury awakens it's going to be pretty rough for you in our lands, with your foreign semitic religion painting a target on the back of you and your family members. Although you can always drop the act and blend back in a sort of milquetoast gambit if it came to that, assuming you didn't provide material resistance to the enemy. Either way I hope you at a minimum don't give up on your European bloodline, assuming you aren't some form of non-white mix. Racial watering down of European blood has fucked up the potential of every civilization it came in contact with, from central/south america to greece and beyond. We can even see how southern Europe suffers some negative effects in terms of their potential as you run the gradient from north to south.

That's good context, thanks.

Attached: Temple_Grandin_at_TED.jpg (1920x1845, 194.8K)

Starts a discussion about Evola

Starts complaining about muh small government.

Americans truly are the niggermutts of the world.

Believing in a cyclical nature of anything is just an advanced version of defeatism and taking an excessively broad view to the point of meaninglessness. You are accepting something currently being terrible because that's "just the way things are" and that it will eventually change without your contribution. Some things change. Some thing stay the same. Some things seemingly repeat. Some things go down weird in weird ways or only partially repeat while the rest gets worse or better. It is up to you and others to try to give yourselves and society the best possible path forward.

As far as governance goes, minigov is just asking for other people to take control and make it not minigov, democracy is asking for kikes to take control by appealing and leading things to the lowest, ugliest common and uncommon denominator, while fascism allows for great changes to be made quick and offers the best opportunity to expel some negative aspects (like kikes) of the current system.

the traditional man is not supposed to act by following the course of contingent history like a carrot on a stick, he is rather supposed to act according to timeless principles, valid regardless of the particular era he finds himself in and only adapted to the circumstances
your criticism is not particularly related to cyclicity itself but could be equally applied to a linear and bounded view of history with a definite start and an end like it is typical of abrahamites, it depends on whether you think humans' will determines the course of things or if the course of things is what it is regardless of what humans will

I'm familiar enough with the trad school criticisms, what they don't seem to care to acknowledge is the screamingly obvious fact that you simply cannot take a country/nation/society all the way from the brink of Judeo-Bolshevik takeover, Weimar, democratic socialism, bourgeois secular liberal humanism, castrated Christcuckery, etc. back to the Roman Republic in one step, nor in one decade, nor in one generation. And you cannot simply abandon high industrialism, because you need to have the most powerful military possible, because you're quite literally surrounded by enemies with enormous industrialized militaries and nearly unlimited funding.

Rediscovering the wisdom of ancient Aryans is the easy part, re-implementing it in the world is a billion times harder, and the alternative is destruction. The attitude of "dude it's Kali Yuga, there's nothing you can do, don't even try, just lie down and die, just wait for Kalki to make it all better" is the farthest thing imaginable from the Aryan attitude. The politics of bundling, by any name, is nothing more than simply the emergency-restore-mode innate to all Aryan peoples. No people will ever voluntarily vote its way back to a sound traditional civilization and no one familiar with the content of the traditional school would ever for even a moment entertain the notion, Aryan caste society is always imposed from above by a noble military aristocracy. In the case of Germany, it had just gotten out from under a hated decadent-degenerate secularized aristocracy which had been in all important aspects at odds with Aryan ways since at least the time of Luther, the German people's hatred for the Junkers, following WWI, is hard to overstate, and it was well understood by the public that it was the German nobility that had allowed, habilitated, and eventually emancipated, Jews into German lands, for nearly a thousand years.

That's not completely honest either. The majority of Traditionalists I have read stress not just the esoteric functions of religion but also the exoteric functions as well. If Guenon simply found that Islamic spiritual truths were meaningful towards the development of an inner spiritual practice, he would have wound up like Henry Corbin (who became one of the utmost experts on Islamic philosophy in the West and also a Traditionalist).

Martin Lings's biography of Mohammad is widely regarded as the de facto text on the Prophet and early Islamic society in the English language. The amount of devotion and seriousness he put into that work alone lends me to believe the man was not simply using Islam to justify his own inner spiritual work but truly had become part of the ummah.

On the topic of Islam itself, everyone points to Sufism which isn't really a sect but more of a practice of Sunni Islam. It has a bleak view in modernity (it should be remembered that Wahhabism is a modernist school) but has never traditionally been separate from the Sunni community at large. Additioanlly, Shia Islam has also held the captivation of Traditionalists, typically those influenced by Seyyed Hossein Nasser who is a devout Muslim who would find it lamentable that Westerners were merely adopting the trappings of the Islamic faith with no real belief in the foundational concepts of it.

There will come a point in time where, having delved into Traditionalist circles, reading the works of the leading and influential thinkers, that an user will be confronted with the Islamic question. Anyone on Zig Forums who is sincere is right-wing enough to realize the deep conflict this would cause in any modern Western man. It's a question they'll have to answer for themselves but I've seen many people go down the Islamic path and lose all conception of what/who they were simply in the name of combating modernity. It's why I implore anons interested in this train of thought to stay with Julius Evola who is a heterodox thinker within Traditionalist but provides us a means of viewing the world through this lens while maintaining our identity.

Attached: a8503b4c3f178e30b59157a032d4deb6.jpg (684x1024, 91.2K)

Or… you could also start reading everything from the Greeks to modern political philosophers and novelist, you know how genuine right wing people view their history.

In other words, the traditionalist man is a madman, who rejects reality so he can inject his own fantasy world into it.

Look, this isn't India 300 AD when old Hinduism is slowly coming back and replacing Buddhism, this is the West 2019 AD and we are going to be stuck with the same culture we were stuck with since the middle of the 17th century, so you beter get used to it.

We're discussing a specific school of intellectual thought, why would you recommend subjects outside of that school to someone interested in what those school's teachings are? Ideally, user is already familiar with these things. You're also not going to get very far in this if you don't already have a foundational understanding of history, religion, and philosophy.

Let's see, why would I combat an error, humn let me think, because it's an error?

This whole business of traditionalism, is just impotence, Western civilization is far to difficult and complex for a single person to understand, so why not reject it all and embrace traditionalism, now your master of your own castle.

The castle has been made out of dung and is build on a swamp, but atleast you are it's master. That is traditionalism.

That's how fucking retarded you sound right now.

That name is reserved for people who actually made successful prophecy, not sand apes spewing lies that never came true out of their asses

indeed, wasn't doubting that, just that what drove them to Islam in the first place wasn't the exoteric part, as traditional as it was, after all they, Guénon, but also his good friend Guido de Giorgio, were brought up as Catholics.
I mean, Guénon and others themselves do essentially point out that the exterior forms of a particular tradition reflect the particular needs and ways to understand Tradition of a particular people. I think not taking this into account results in an unwanted "tension" capable of even destroying a traditional society as I think happened in Europe with Christianity, as "adapted" as it had been in its exterior forms to the European ways of conceiving the divine since its appearance in the Levant.
For individuals with certain qualities who are capable to see beyond the verb this isn't much of an issue, but most aren't.

This involves Henry Corbin at the Eranos Lectures. I found this whilst reading up on Gershom Scholem and Mircea Eliade and heh ho they're all in one book here.

Actually, it makes perfect sense to point to Shakespeare in a discussion about existentialism, showing you have no idea what you are talking about, but let me rephrase myself.

You come here, telling people to eat shit, then I come along and tell them, neh, maybe not eat shit when you can eat some nice potatoes with gravy and sauerkraut, then you come along and tell, no dude, eating shit is like totally traditional and then I tell him, yeah it's right that eating shit is as old as monkeys and our most primitive ancestors did it, but that the inventions of cooking are just a lot better then eating shit and then you come along comparing eating shit and cooking to existentialism and shakespaere and then I laugh, because Shakespear influenced existentialism.

Got it?

Then why doesn't that same thing apply to Liberalism which has a lot to say about God, the nature of the universe and ethics, but…. somehow not an ignorant desert religion like Islam?

I'll let you think about that.

Traditionalism (in a broad sense) is mostly a kosher version of nationalism due to it's universalism, inclusiveness, and appeal to the wider (international) population. It's also the furthest you can go without seriously tackling the question of the race and the Jewish problem. It's at the acceptable end of political axis of Conservativism, just one step further making you a bad goy. People who adhere to such system are mostly Freemasons, some types of Christians, or orientalist kike puppets like Dugin&co. But they always keep it inside the "safe zone" and never take it to it's logical conclusion. And that's race realism. But just like Freemasons, they are mostly shabbos goys. Evola, despite all of his good ideas, was never a dangerous author for (((Them))) . Neither were most others who belonged to the traditionalist school of thought. At worst, it's just another pseudo-dialectical trick to calm down the people distressed by the plague of modernity, rarely attacking it's cause and not truly tackling the consequences. Everyone can be a traditionalist, regardless of race, religion etc. Making it awfully similar to Freemasonry and other gatekeeper organizations. As evidenced in this thread, it often leads to a bunch of mutts (an insult against nature) attacking National Socialism for being "degenerate" (not kosher enough and going all the way) and for promoting a system superior to the one of "divine rule" where you get a bunch of kikes and their degenerate nepotistic spawn larping as kangs.

You are (most likely purposefully) presenting those as mutually exclusive. This is another one of their gambits. Either embrace materialism, or magical thinking. Genuine philosophy and metaphysics are (mostly) excluded.

Which is the direct consequence of worshiping tradition for the sake of tradition, and not of what it brings.

At worst, it's just another gambit. At best, it's a good stepping stone to authors like Rosenberg.

what? liberalism isn't a traditional doctrine, it's anti traditional to the highest degrees and has nothing interesting/substantial to say about God since its founded on principles that essentially kill any idea beyond the material and man, and attracts precisely the kind of people who have no adherence to any tradition

nobody here is trying to convince the masses of anything, Traditionalist authors make it quite explicit that their books aren't directed to everyone

Right, so I read some liberal writer, the guy quotes the Bible and the Greeks, but somehow not traditional, then what is traditionalism exactly, everything that isn't superior and Western?

Because that's what it sounds like to me, you think everything is traditional, except the West, which is somehow superior in science, knowledge, economics etc.

Weird, because it is simple enough to appeal to the masses, while almost nobody today promotes genuine liberalism anymore.

And this posts goes as a perfect example of what I described in my previous post. Here we see a kike promoting a degenerate Abrahamistic religion as a solution.

How many women were leaders in the Reich? Were they not occupying traditional female roles for the most part?
Another lie, there was positive Christianity, paganism and mystery religions for the highest initiates.
Heere we go

Gee, I wonder why, Chaim.

I was excited to read this thread when on my lunch break, not so much now. There sure are whole lot of "intellectuals" in here pushing Kosher and Abrahamic modes of thinking.

The only good parts of Islam were hownit replaced Christian guilt with a warrior-conqueror mindset. The parts they praised were often Sufi, which was Greek Neoplatonism and Zoroastrian/Persian(pagan) inspired, Evola cruces Guénon for essentially following a magian desert Semitic tradition instead of one native to indo-europeans

I'll let Evola himself speak:

the way most modern scholars may look at Greeks and their beliefs has nothing to do with such a view, they may document them, expose them to the public, translate them, they do not share their views, if not in a superficial way which lacks its fundamental metaphysical axis
modern academia works on consensus, a quantitative and mass view of things

a simple look at what the masses think is enough to laugh at this statement, the lukewarm leftism and materialism of modern masses is much closer to your "genuine liberalism" than anything from the Traditionalist school

Evola was right. As was Serrano.

This is absolute bullshit, even modern science thinks in terms of abstract laws of nature, mathematics, energy, matter, time, space, etc, the nature of consciousness, and many modern concepts of God, but that would be difficult and complex to understand, so you replace it with a simple system of physics and metaphysics.

Honestly, traditionalism is so leftwing, it's almost communism, strip away the metaphysics and you basically get communism, everyone is equal yadayada,

Are you that fucking dense to not understand that you've added exactly nothing to the conversation than HURRR THIS BAD. You can discuss and debate the merits and pitfalls of something without A) promoting it or, B) agreeing with it. You argue like a kike user.

This is an underrated post and brings up something I forgot to mention, namely, the influence of Freemasonry on Traditionalism. You bring up the race/religion/universalism which is true, additionally, the heavy emphasis on a revealed or initiatory experience that can only be delivered by a "master" reeks of Masonic occultism.

Most Traditionalists, as I said, are sad, frustrated, lonely intellectuals who are so atomized as individuals that the only way they can feel any sense of purpose or belonging is to go head first into a religious path and adopt it. It's speaks to a uniquely Western feeling (although there are plenty Traditionalists outside the West). Evola is good in that his writings are explicitly right-wing and deal with a blood spirituality that is rooted in Western European thinking. One can follow Evola to Hitlerian thinkers who go way out there (Devi or Serrano to name the most prominent) or can use his method of analyzing myth to gain a better understanding of their own spirituality. "Fascism Viewed From the Right" might have some scathing reactionary critiques of Fascist thought but I don't see National Socialism and Evola's work as being antithetical.

You could as well convert to Judaism so you could find some elements they stole from other religions. Top Freemasonry. Never accept a belief system where you don't agree with at least 2/3 of it's general ideas.

Another Abrahamic cult that was the seat of global jewry for centuries. But at least they are more traditional than modern SJW's, amirite? By modern standards, even classical liberals are right wing.

Sunni Islam is just another branch of Jewry, and it's a religion where shitskins are your brothers as long as you are both slaves of the moon god, similar to Christianity. You kikes keep implying that if you want a patriarchal society, you also have to accept all the other shit that comes included with the goat-fucker religion. Which is a fallacy. Promote patriarchy as it's own virtue.

Every system can be corrupted, that's why people are most important. High quality people (whites) , high quality education/culture = high quality society. This is why only the supermen can live in the golden age, and that includes the genetic component as well. Most traditionalists ignore this aspect.

This is a good post. Any religion that goes well with civic nationalism and "multinational imperialism" is pure kikery, no exceptions.

This guy gets it. And I say that as someone from south Europe, where you can very clearly see the racial differences. The more non-European blood people have, the worst kikes/subhumans they are, and vice versa.

Actually, for those who truly understand cyclical time, it's known that to end the iron age, you must yourself become the purifier of filth. It won't go on it's own, other than society potentially collapsing and the conditions for the great purge arising as a consequence. Look how quickly Germany rose after Weimar, which was absolute modernity tier. But it had the right people and the right ideas.

thank you for writing this, spares me from taking anything you write seriously

Yes user, how dare I attack your vice of eating shit.

Hinduism

Whats the difference between communism and traditionalism, with the exception of the difference in metaphysics, please explain this.

communism is a horizontal, materialistic ideology of the masses for the masses
Traditionalism is a vertical, hierarchical and organic metaphysical view of reality
Traditionalists typically like caste systems, aristocracy, royalty, priesthood, etc… while communists find all of these abhorrent, is that enough?

So, if we remove the metaphysics, it's the same thing.

The Party and it's structures
Party leadership, eternal Leader etc.
Academia, party propaganda

I disagree with both, it's values, end goals, and social dynamics that matter the most. Everything else is less relevant. What's the endgame of traditionalism?

they are actually as opposite as they could be, but whatever, you do not want to understand anything so anything I say is completely futile, this is my last reply to you

Attached: 1449374482805.png (1280x924, 420.47K)

I don't like christianity either, fundamentally, in any case Guénon's focus on initiation is the major reason for this opinion I think
when he is talking of European christianity he is talking about the christianity of people like Dante or Saint Bernard, who whether you like it or not were quite important Europeans and whose Christianity, particularly in the case of Dante, was quite different from anything under that name today(his arguably major "philosophical" work, De Monarchia, questioning to a degree the authority of the church over the Empire, was later banned by the church itself)
and in any case, he wrote most of his works before Vatican II, if he was alive today maybe he would change his mind and agree with Evola who saw Catholicism as fundamentally dead and unrecoverable

Attached: Dx8tcpkXQAAI1UF.jpg (984x1476, 161.16K)

You had a lot of "Christian" authors, very good ones, scientists, philosophers, artists etc. But they did not create great works because of Christianity, it was just the only venue available for them to express themselves (at leas in any public manner)

This

What if converting to Islam is the only way to create white babies? I would argue that converting to Islam and finding a white muslim wife (Bosnian, Albanian, Russian,…) gives you a higher chance of creating a lasting white family than marrying a western woman.
You would create many children and pass on your genes whereas the "strong-willed men" would not have children (or maybe 1 or 2) and his genes would perish (in the long run)

This is a discussion about Traditionalism and that's exactly what I am discussing

Not that many compared to today's standards, but still too many. The fact that the most famous filmmaker was a woman says a lot. If intelligent women get careers, then they won't breed as much, which makes it so that the intelligent genes won't spread (as much). This is by all accounts degenerate. And women also had the right to vote, which is by definition first wave feminism.

The point is that there exists something to the right of National Socialism, which is something a lot of people don't recognize.

The only thing to the right of National Socialism is Monarchial Feudalism.

No, there are a lot of ideologies to the right of National Socialism.
The Nazis faced a lot of criticism from people like Evola.

I'm not sure I agree with the baseline intepretation of Theology being the answer. His thesis is closer to "A King is an mortal God and God is an immortal King". A more nuanced point of view would be the idea of a leader having a percieved "righteousness" to his cause that leads to him being seen as a man beloved by greater powers. This could be achieved using more modern things that have aquired a cult like following. For example, science and ironically to a degree atheism both have what one can truly consider cultists in a vein similar to priests and so forth as you pointed out. Spreaders of the "good word" of the "new gods of science" and so forth. For a positive King, in theory, one could ride the wave of ethnocentrism we are currently noticing among certain populations and facilitating from that a new leader or King. Using any of the mainstream religions for a theological leader would be a failiure due to their fragmented and semetic ways.

You also have to consider the foundations for what such a King or simply leader would be based upon, most Kings had an origin story of sort tied to already existing tales whether it be Charlemagne (sp?) or Paganistic tribal leaders. A leader must arise off the crest of something, something that to the simpler people seems almost magical but to the educated merely impressive.

I believe his framework is sound on the basic ideas and points he raises but they need reworking for application in this darker era to be effective enough to stand a chance at success. A return to tradition would create an effective bulwark but the question is as to the *how* of it. We are fairly far gone as a society, while I dispise the accelerationist viewpoint I don't think such a thing could work until total collapse occurs, if it ever does.

give Guenon TL;DR
I;ve only seen him exclusively promoted by (((identitarians))) and other alt kike fags
Makes me suspicious tbh desu

>right vs left is real and not (((masonic))) memery
terrible posts, you should be ashamed of yourself

Attached: anime juice that makes you stare at gay people.png (374x535, 172.36K)

Islam gives the proper cultural background to women, but only if they are raised in such environment. As long as it's moderate. Otherwise, it will create a rebellion and a counter-effect. Muslim women often turn into total sluts the second they are given freedom. And it's not physical force that keeps them in check, but social conditioning. However, the cost of few redeeming qualities that it has is too great for that to be a viable option. You should never accept shitskins as brothers, and even if you don't, under Islam, your children will. Islam is actually one tier below "trad Christian family" in regards to it's psycho-cultural toxicity. You'd be much better off joining Mormons, Amish, or some community like that. I was actually considering it, but I'm quite cautious considering how kiked some of those are. Bosnia is a good place though, since some people there have preserved their proto-Slavic and Germanic ancestry quite well. Some.

My advice to western anons is to use their wealth disparity to find women in eastern Europe, but move there rather than bringing women to their homes, because once they get hold of the (((state))), you have lost them. Instead of marrying gooks out of desperation and creating hapas and other unfortunate creatures while eastern European women get pissed on by rich Arabs for money, you could strike a good deal and find yourself a white wife that would need to behave because you hold the money. Eventually, she will start to appreciate your role as a man who offers her a decent life (decent in all ways, not just financially). Transmute a lose-lose situation into a win-win situation.

Observing people as breeding machines is a very … Jewish way of thinking. Intelligent men will reproduce with average women ensuring the spread of genes for intelligence. Women should be treated like children (because otherwise they will break stuff), not like pigs. There is nothing wrong with them partaking in society, and many social roles require women to function properly. You need teachers, nurses, mediators, someone to do trainable tasks efficiently etc, so men could deal with more important things (thinking and fighting). Feminism, as much of a kikery as it is, originally arose due to men treating women improperly (due to, you guessed it, kike religions). Problem - improper treatment of women because of Abrahamist cults, Reaction - Feminism (misandry) , Solution - Modern (((state))) . Neither men nor women understand this.

National Socialism was about striking the best balance (which was actually quite right wing from the perspective of today's twisted world), it was never meant to be "the most right wing political system in existence" . Anything left from it, OR right from it is a terrain of the kike.

Guénon himself has criticized abrahamitic monotheisms
yet Guénon even ended up converting to it. (islam)
make your mind up rene
also:
both abrahamic, both invented by jews to control goyim with a mind virus
hmmmmm, this guenon fellow isn't a crypto kike by any chance is he?

Medieval christianity was very different to todays (((christianity)))

That's why ((((historians))) shit so much on that period being (((The Dark Ages))) and knights not being virtuous examples of chivalry but poorly minded stinky barbarians.

Kikes always use two kosher extremes as opposed to each other so people keep bouncing from one to another, never endangering their rule and never discovering the truth. Hereditary monarchy vs Communism for example. Any organic system that seeks the best model of governing gets attacked viciously by both.

...

This is what I thought judging by the people who promote him and the fact I have never, ever seen him promoted on Zig Forums by genuine anons.

I get it, people here have a massive aversion towards abrahamites, I kinda have too, I don't deny it, but if you actually read my post fully you may have understood the difference between converting because of "exoteric" reasons i.e because you want 72 virgins and don't like pork, and converting because you believe/know that beyond these "mass" aspects of religion, there are elite esoteric aspects of it that have for instance been preserved better compared to your own(in the case of Guénon, Catholicism).
Cannot rally blame anyone interested in deep aspects of spirituality that finds Europe to be a desert. If there were schools of Aristotelism or Platonism alive in Europe tracing back to Hellas or even the middle ages maybe he would've chosen them, but nothing of the sort exists anymore, not even medieval revived ones.

This is essentially like that ending of Deus ex where you side with tracer tong and bring back tribalism and the advent of what is essentially a new dark age, one without technology and focused on rebuilding. It's a romantic notion, but I disagree with it then and I disagree with it now. In most depictions of the years 2010 + seen in popular fiction you see many recurring themes; trans-humanism, significant advances in technology, a more efficient/comfortable lifestyle.. You also see dystopian futures in the years closing up to 2000, but I think we already know why that is. (((The net))) was beginning to close around a free thinking, optimistic society.

Our current society is damaged, possibly beyond repair, but to revert to a semi-feudalistic medieval-style religious controlled system would probably leave us in a *worse* situation than we're in now. The reason why the future seemed so optimistic in certain media pre 90s/2000s is almost certainly because the logical route would most likely have taken us. Instead, we fill the void of technocracy and the advancement of humanity with dysgenic, self-damaging behaviors. We are living in a depiction of the future; 1984 and brave new world, not the idealistic version many probably had hoped to see at this point; colonies on mars, interacting with alien species. You know (((who))) to thank for that. The goal should be to depose them and bring humanity to it's peak, something which they would only have kept for themselves, and for their own nefarious, selfish reasons.

as do any group of women
Yes but there aren't any communities like that in Europe, while there are white muslim communities.

You're right on moving to Eastern Europe, but you would have to learn the language. Plus Eastern Europe is becoming more liberal by the day too.

No it isn't. It is simply the most efficient way of running a society. Any society that views women as breeding machines will out-compete the ones who don't (in the long run).

In fact Jews have advocated AGAINST viewing women as breeding machines for decades now.

There is no "balance". That is what Traditionalism and cyclic time is all about. First Wave Feminism will always lead to Second Wave Feminism, which will always lead to Third Wave Feminism.

If you are talking about literal rebellions, those are always funded by foreign powers and are always started by students who studied abroad.

Islam is extremely patriarchal and is tribal because of it, almost implicitly racialist. Look up "racism in theIslamic world". In morocco for instance niggers are being beaten in the streets while being called "niggers" or "slaves". While in western countries they are welcomed and pampered to. Even a lot of National Socialists are softer on niggers than the general population in a lot of Islamic countries. In a lot of "multiracial" Islamic countries the whiter ones rule everything (because of higher IQ) and the brown ones are at the bottom of society. There are no cries of "white privilege" because the concept of race is generally understood by the population (even if only subconsciously).

The cyclic time part of Traditionalism has nothing to do with technology, it's about what values a society has and how it is run. Evola had nothing against using technology and wasn't some primitivist or anti-technology activist.

The narrator might be a shill, but this is extremely relevant to this thread.

For your last paragraph that's not some ideal that "whiter" ones are at the top and "darker" ones are the bottom. It's just the logical conclusion of a mixed people, and it's the same in Latin America or even Asian where South Asians are at the bottom of the totem pole. Over time however they become increasingly racially mixed. So crabs in a bucket is not really some high virtue.

Attached: cd252acee6f4577f71f4c21783ad19de5dcae1cf3afa2ee0a6734ba80961b5fa.jpg (400x446, 26.1K)

Do you see your mother as a breeding machine used by your father? Do you see your daughters as breeding machines to lease to other men for use?

I disagree.
Any state based on a lie is doomed to failure. The USSR was a theocracy (if anyone doubts that communism is a religion, just go over to Zig Forums and observe them in their element) and it imploded once the people realized that everything their society was built upon was a lie.

Speaking of which…

Go read it yourself, fucking lazy ass faggot.

Attached: 7d63d15a9d55a7862bdfd87cc072317c4f28760e30fe80d88443af9a1123e8f6.png (6161x5009, 3.81M)

if we got rid of technology, local government would be the only important form of government.

technology is the problem. people had more freedom under monarchies in the past than with today's technological, "free" societies.

i can't even build a guest house on my own property without getting it approved by the govt.

Yes it absolutely is. It is the very core basis of kike and mohammadkike "culture".
Sick pilpul rabbi! 10/10! You have had your kikesses tell white women that white men are just like kike men, hating women and viewing them as livestock. You did this so white women could be tricked into hating white men. We never treated women that way, that is one of the things that makes whites unique. You had harems and concubines, we were monogamous. This is why we have many eye and hair colors, and why white women are the only women that are attractive. White women had to compete for mates, in all your black, yellow and mongrel "cultures" all women reproduced, even the most hideous gorilla looking sheboon could be some guys 45th breeding sow. With whites, high status males only took the best mate, not 100 mates. And since men died all the fucking time, all the ugliest women didn't get to reproduce.
Islam is not patriarchal at all. This is the big lie that kikes have been using. Muds of both flavors are actually misogynistic. Not in the (((feminist))) sense of "a man existed therefore misogyny". They have genuine misogynist societies. They hate women and view them as livestock. Whites had patriarchal societies. A patriarchal society is rule by fathers. Fathers love, cherish, protect and provide. We don't hate our wives and children, that is you mudmongrels trying to project your filth onto whites. Of course we recognize that women are not as strong, smart or capable as men. Neither are children, or dogs for that matter. We don't hate any of them because of that, we appreciate their good qualities and provide our strength, intelligence and capability to make up for their lacking.